Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games - User contributions [en]

Talk:Jurassic: The Hunted

2010-09-20T01:42:27Z

M14fanboy:

Just played this game for a bit...HOW can pistol-whipping a raptor kill it?!
:Sheer dumb luck?--[[User:PistolJunkie|PistolJunkie]] 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
::Perhaps your playing as Chuck Norris? [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-08-01T02:44:18Z

M14fanboy: /* New weapons! */

This game has a cold war look to it

==zombie mode==

will they have it? It is treyarch, but i havent heard anything solid yet.
:The article that I read (and summarized below) seemed to indicate that they had something other than zombies. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not copying spec ops.....

Maybe it's aliens.

Area 51 anyone? Eh? Eh? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==='''M16 is in.'''===

I am not sure which version is that, but i added it as A1.
:I see no forward assist and a three-prong flash hider in the screenshots, so it looks to be an original M16. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 18:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It have been confirmed in '''Call of Duty:Black ops INSIGHT''' trailer.

Oh crap, they mentioned Sonny Puzikas, I remember that name from the spetsnaz episode of Deadliest Warrior.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"
:What the hell do you have with those movie guns ? Why should they be in ?

It would be amazing to see Sa. Vz. 58 there. It was frequently used by vietcong fighters as USSR´s help.

''''''Some good proofs''' :'''

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=691&sid=c3ccbd4348543db02c420df186cb428c ('' '''NVA training''''' )

http://www.quansuvn.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41.0;attach=4972;image

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=1169 ('' '''SSG Patrick Tadina with his Vz. 58''''' )

http://www.psywarrior.com/rewardforguns.gif ( '''''Vietcong fighters firearms info poster, left side, third from down''''' )

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1164/biethaisamopal9wq.jpg ( '''''Captured Vz. 58 on left''''' )

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/joshuadowdle/Dad.jpg ( '''''In hands of SSG Patrick Tadina''''' )

''SSG Patrick Tadina - Legendary, five-tour Vietnam ranger. He is in rangers´s hall of fame.''

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more for identification than anything. So if you're pissed at one guy, you can just look at him ans say "Hey it's that one guy, Imma kill 'em", instead of reading the little tiny red words above their head that is often jibberish anyway. Just my opinion, though. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 03:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinkin' maybe they showed off the MW2 guns first to get MW2 fans interested in this game. Then maybe later they'll show off some new guns. Here's to hopin'. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 22:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

You don't get the fans back with the same old guns. You draw interests with NEW guns that hasn't been used before. Variety and distinctions. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Well how much differently could essentially just a shortened MP5 with a foregrip work from the regular MP5?

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.
:Look, I can understand having access to weapons no one has ever heard of at the time, but you can't have access to weapons if it doesnt EXIST in the world yet. I mean just because they are SOG doesn't mean they have their own special gunsmith to factory make new parts and designs for weapons that haven't been thought up yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

It's just like the Aperature sight in W@W, but no where near as bad. I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of it, sure it's not exactly authentic, but it's far from game ruining like what a lot of people here are saying.

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::'''Operation Flashpoint''', '''Rainbow Six: Raven Shield''' and '''Insurgency''' all did tactical reloads properly (ammunition is a number of magazines, not bullets, and if you reload a partially-empty mag it goes back in the pool), and the latter two also simulated +1 capacity. Insurgency is a mod but the other two are retail games. --[[User:MattyDienhoff|MattyDienhoff]] 20:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

......Why the hell wouldn't they take it seriously? You do know that the British had actually adopted a bullpup design in 1951 for a very short time. Search Em-2 Rifle. It even had a built in optical sight on the
carrying handle. We Yanks then bossed everybody into adopting the 7.62 and the EM-2 was abandoned because it was in the .280 round so they went with the FAL which could be much more easily changed to use the 7.62
Actually, the EM-2 would be a better choice for this game or the SA80 prototype that appeared in The Professionals. I am aware of the EM-2.
=== Bullpup guns ===

If they want bulpup gun in game why didnt they coice Em-2 ? Or Famas ? WHY THAT ANACHRONISTIC AUG, damn.
The FAMAS is even more anachronistic than the AUG. The FAMAS was adopted in the early eighties and it used a different type of 5.56 ammo than the NATO standard.

: Yeah. It get into service in eighties. But atleast there '''WERE''' first prototypes in 1968. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ummm...the prototypes of both the FAMAS and AUG were developed in the seventies. A better choice might be the Stoner 63 which had a history of use by the Navy SEALs and other clandestine units

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

The whole game looks suspiciously like MW2, just my opinion though. Hughjefender

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

I thought it was supposed to be a homage to 80's action movies. Or at least that's why I'm accepting it, because then I'll feel like I'm in an 80's action movie whenever I play this game. And what would an 80's action movie be without the SPAS-12 or the AUG? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

Hey, I'll take that over reloading ''two'' double barrel shotguns at the same time without dropping one anyday. [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

It's an M203. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

At least it's European, the Russians in MW2 carried Vectors and TAR-21s. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the AR-15 reload, it looked real. He pressed the mag release, he let the magazine fall to the ground, and he held it there until he put the new mag in. It's alot more realistic than the MW2 reloads, were you wave your gun around the screen while reloading either to look cool or to make it obvious that you are, in fact, reloading your weapon. Most of the time though, people don't do that when they reload in real life, unless they're an idiot. The .357 reload was kinda lazy though, but I let it slide because he actually whips the cylinder back in instead of the light tilt that's all it takes to swing the cylinder back in in MW2 and most other video games. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More noticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:Is it me or is the picture in the magazine a reverse shot? Because I see the forward assist on this A1 as well as the ejection on the right side. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up
[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Any links to zombies?

== Has it occured to anyone that the AR-15 variant is probably custom made? ==

Treyarch has said that these guys could have guns custom built just for them, which I feel explains things much more adequately than just saying that they're prototypes of future (to them) guns. My theory is that he had a CAR-15 custom made with a flat-top reciever for tactical reasons. Maybe this caught on with the rest of the team, and whatever manufacturer they got to make these guns for them sold the idea later on. Of course this is just an excuse for the guns having the rails just to free it up for attacthments in Multiplayer, but at least there is some kind of excuse. Unfortunately this theory doesn't cover the anachronistic appearances of the SPAS-12 and the AUG, but hey, no game ever get's all of it's guns 100% correct. 

Edit: Actually it just might explain the AUG, because all it really is is a combination of ideas taken from the Enfield EM-2, 
Korobov TKB-022, and several other abandoned designs from before or shortly after World War 2. The only thing it doesn't explain is why it has the production-style built in telescopic sight, instead of the original prototypes open sights:
[[http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_pr1.gif]]

== For those of you who may be confused about the supposed MP5/UMP hybrid ==

This is what I'm talkin about: 

[[Image:CODBO-SMG.jpg]] 

As you can see, it appears that it has the reciever and magazine housing of an MP5 or MP5K, while the barrel housing (correct me if I'm incorrect in calling it that) looks like that of a somewhat shortened UMP. If you look closely, you will note that it has the MP5Ks finger guard (I'm guessing that's what that is) directly below the muzzle that looks like a cut down version of the full handguard found in this picture: 

[[Image:MP5Kprototype.JPG]] 

My point is I don't think it's a hybrid at all, merely an MP5K missing it's forward vertical grip, for some reason or another. And seeing as every other aspect of the gun is that of an MP5Ks, I think it's safe to say that's what it is, so I'm gonna change it to that on the front page. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== G11 ==

Anyone else as excited as I am for the inclusion of the G11? [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just another anachronistic gun. Thats all. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure as heck am. --[[User:AK-74Fan|AK-74Fanc]] 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh the gun itself isn't that big of a deal to me, but I definitely am excited to see something that to my knowledge hasn't been in an FPS before. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Well, it have appeared already in few other FPS games. For example [[Delta Force: Land Warrior]], [[Global Operations]], [[IGI 2: Covert Strike]] or Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Those games are not up to the modern standard, though. ;) [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:Really, you could say this is the G11s first appearance in a well known game, and will finally show it off to the masses. I love the weapon itself, and to see it finally make a big appearance like this makes me quite happy.[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== XM214 Microgun ==

Since it's going to cover the Vietnam era, and the way these types of games like to go over the top, do you think there's a chance that the XM214 Microgun is going to make an appearance? I know it was only a prototype, and was it was made in the 70's, but I thought I read somewhere that the SF guys tried it out only to find that it was not feasable having a gun fire at 4,000 rpm.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think putting a Minigun in the game would be kind of stupid. I mean sure they could make it heavy and awkward to carry, but that thing would simply decimate anyone in it's path, whether they're behind light cover, in a vehicle or just in the open. I'd love one, but methinks not. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== A more plausable fictional AR-15 ==

I can understand a frankengun, like some special forces guy back then would take several kinds of AR-15 designs and mash them together until he gets an awesome gun that works. And being special forces, they can get whatever they want to suit their mission, so it would make sense for whatever they take to not be standard issue or that it is known, but I don't like the flip up iron sights since I don't know when flip up irons came about or the flat top receiver. It's like they just took a Colt Model 933 and replaced the stock with an old style stock from the CAR-15. I mean, put a telescoptic stock on an M16A1 rifle, or A2 upper reliever on the Car-15 and swap out the pistol grip or something. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:That would make sense considering the special forces style of the game. Also, Sonny (from Deadliest warrior and such) was on as an advisor for Spetsnaz and tactics, so look for both some epic Spetsnaz moves and even a character of him in game! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Do we even officially know yet what model AR-15 it is, aside of course from the flattop reciever and flip-up sights? [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 02:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much is a Colt Model 933 without a brass deflector or forward assist, which actual does not exist. I have not seen a flat top reciever without the forward assist and the brass deflector. I don't even think flip up irons were invented back then. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean if they threw in a CAR-15 tricked out like the ones seen in Black Hawk Down, I'd have no complaints [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

== New weapons! ==

Here's [[http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/File:GunWall.png]] a pic of a bunch of airsoft guns Treyarch has on a wall in their studio which pretty much confirms that they'll be in the game. 
From left to right, starting at the top: 
-M16A2 (?) 
-MAC-10 w/ supressor 
-AUG 
-Mini-Uzi 
-L85 
-Scorpion SA Vz 61 
-AKs-74u 
-Another Skorpion 
-SPAS-12 
-MP5 (?) 

Not sure exactly what the MP5 is doing as there already is the K variant prototype, and no idea what the HELL the M16A2 is doing there as there's already an M16A1 AND a CAR-15. What do you all think?
Sorry it's a bit blurry.

It could be a very blurry M16A1 or maybe because they somehow can bullshit their way into saying they got a prototype M16A2. And I prefer us to use the full size MP5 again. Looks like they got an L85 here. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

: That pic is here too :) Check out "extras" section in article :D

:The L85 got my gun-boner up, been wanting that since the MW2 L86 LSDisapointment. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::Dude, put that away. :P [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We might also see the Browning HP because of the rumored "Iranian Hostage Situation" level. [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]

:I wouldn't be surprised, but if I see another Desert Eagle, then I'll have to wtf. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::Deagle prototype and AA12 prototype + level is moved to Buckingham Pallace to add more drama to the game. [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]
:::Sorry, Buck Palace? Explain this? I assume this is a rumour, since so far Operation Nimrod has yet to be confirmed aswell. Sounds interesting though (if a little rediculous and implausible)
::::just kidding. I just jumped on the Black Ops bandwagon [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]

Im guessing the a2 is used since its more availible and when they do motion capture it would look the same. showing how someone moves with a m16 s what they're looking for,

:Also, the footage showing the Spetsnaz game models doing rolls shows the player holding and firing a clearly Vietnam era M16A1, so that's there for sure. Also, I do believe the Iranian Embassy raid will be tacked on much like Mile high Club in CoD 4, simple as a fun epilogue style bonus mission. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I really hope there's a Browning HP, cause it's cool and cause I'm Canadian lol. It might be in to be honest because in COD4 the Overkill and Last Stand pics had a Glock and then it was added in MW2, and the Overkill pic in WAW was a Browning HP :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope its just "iranian embassy raid inspired", not the real thing, i want more than 6 guys to shoot.

:This is Call of Duty, so you'll always have plenty of enemies to shoot. And yeah Alex, as a fellow Canadian, a Hi-Power would be a nice handgun to have in the game, and period correct. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

As much as I love the Hi Power and actually owning one, I don't want to see one in a game such as call of duty just because of the attention it will recieve from nerds spamming videos on youtube "HEY THIS GUN IS IN CALL OF DUTY!!!!1" It gets really annoying and that kind of attention seems negative to those that actually collect guns. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:Partially agree with you there. I hate the attention guns get from these games (and suddenly every 12 year old becoming a firearms expert [yes, obviously the M16 is better than the AUG just because CoD says so]) but, I enjoy being able to play with them. Win some, loose some. Well, one or two firearms forums have noticed a HUGE increase in the number of people looking for the 'ACR'. As have a few rifle stores in the 'States that I know of have been plagued by idiot teens looking for hi-tech military grade gear...

I hope there is a HP, they need a 9mm gun for MP (more ammo, less recoil, but less damage) and Id rather see a cool gun then a lame generic beretta coming in.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Browning HP, (heck Indiana Jones used one, who wouldn't?) But then again it may look just a little bit too similar to the M1911 that's already confirmed for this game, so it's addition might be just a little visually redundant. [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 05:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:Hi-power and m1911...look similar? It sounds like "Elephant&Rhino look alike" or "M16 looks like AK 47".

I said they look similar. Not exactly alike. Besides, when it comes to COD, all of the guns are supposed to be easily distinguishable on the fly. If they gave one a different finish it'd be perfectly fine.

:Maybe so, maybe not, but all I'd like to hope is that the bloody ACR doesn't return, or else I'm burning down Treyarch studios. Honestly, MW2 just had cool and shiny guns that everyone would like, as opposed to realistic and proper guns used by militaries and militias. Of course the AK needs rails and a retractable stock, that makes it cooler! And of course we have the Barret, because it's big and makes a loud boom! And of course we have a Glock 18, because it's a Glock! I swear, it's like the IW developers had no idea what real special forces, Rangers, Spetsnaz and Militia would be equipped with, and instead went solely with cool, popular and impractical guns. Black Ops sounds like it's trying to be period correct, or at least have some different guns that other games. Sure there's an anachronistic AUG, but atleast it's not an ACR or Intervention in 1968! Rant complete! Also, I've heard lots of rumours of the Beta being released August 1st, anyone got any info on that? [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I've heard that rumor too, but as far as I know it has no information to back it up

some guy was selling beta codes on ebay (£12 for a demo!!!) but they have been pulled. unluckey for the 10 people that bought them as the guy was new and had (0)--[[User:Smish34|Smish34]] 22:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't really need a high cap 9mm, while it wouldn't be realistic but they could do it like they did in WaW. I remember reading something about a old guy that was killed in his home and over 30 guns stolen and he had a Uzi and a FAL. The guy was in his 70s as I recall and someone said "a uzi and a fal? LOL someone plays to much MW2!" even though the guy most likely never heard of MW2. The FAL used to be fun to look up on Youtube, I discovered it through sportsman guide as a parts kit so I looked it up on youtube and it was just educated comments about the gun. Same video a few months later after MW2 came out it was just gaming nerds that thought they knew guns commenting. I don't want to see this happen to the gun thats in my shoulder holster. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 23:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:COD nerds. Sooner or later they`ll grow out of it(like i did with Counter Strike) [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]

Or not.

Who gives a damn if they do, what are you gonna do, buy a brand new gun, buy the most obscure handgun you can think of? Every profession, field of study, or interest gets its day in the limelight(save for the really boring ones), and videogames are doing this for guns. Do you think that symbologists enjoyed when the Da'Vinci code came out? They were probably just as annoyed as you for all the dilettantes who thought they suddenly knew something about symbology. What the hell are you gonna do? Nothing, I say. --[[User:Mr-Jigsaw|Mr-Jigsaw]] 05:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:I plan on owning guns when I grow up, have already handled and shot many guns, and yet I still plan to play CoD as an adult. You know why? Because I enjoy online gaming, and because oddly IRL you can't shoot people and get away with it (outside of airsoft, which I also play) [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Jigsaw, it appears as though you misread my post, I don't want them to include it because I hate the negative and dumbass attention guns online already attract. I feel as though my sport is tainted because of all these idiots. I'm fine with other games including it that aren't as mainstream but CoD is idiot infested. The 1887 Winchester is a perfect example, I learned about it from terminator 2 and thought it was cool and all and comments on those videos were either people that found out about it the same way and shooters. Now they are filled with nerds talking about it in MW2. Its seriously annoying. Seeing how you people come from video games and not shooting you won't be able to understand. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 20:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you never addressed the negative attention bit in your original post, but still, how are you going to stop them? Sure it's annoying but it's nothing to stew over. And I like how you assume that we're 'from' gaming and not a shooting history so we obiously can't know how you feel. Also, your page says you're seventeen, I didn't realize that minors could get CCWs, or was that shoulder holster talk figurative, or do you live on a ranch or something?

It was in my own home and it was for real. Don't need a CCW to carry anyway. I never said I'm gonna stop them or make a petition or anything, I was just expressing my point. Yes I did address the negative attention. Alot of you on here in the video game section have more experiance with video games than actual firearms. I know someone that has made it so you he has to approve comments because of the videos of his Beretta M93r.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

:I'm also extremely proud that even at 16, I came from liking and learning about guns from sources outside of video games. Hell, even if I first see a gun in a game, I'll research it to learn some proper information, not the awesome CoD-Knowledge so many kids think they have nowadays. Literally, I had a kid telling me the ACR was better then the AK-47 the other day because "It's better in MW2, which is really close to real life". I laughed at him for a minute, then went on to own him with a five minute talk on the AK-47, which he promptly retorted to by leaving the game. Cod kids 0, Me 1 [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Eh I shoot when I can, but I mostly just read up on just about everything I can learn about a certain gun once I see it in a movie/game/real life. I wish I had more time to shoot. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 04:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

i hate it when people talk about the intervention sniper as being amazing. ok in real life its very powerful, and i first learnt about it from a film and i thought it looked ugly. i also hate the annoying 10 year olds with the duel shotguns, modern warfare 1 was a great game and tactical, MW2 was more tacticool. especially when you get kids, that shouldnt own the game but are spoilt enbough to get there parents buy it, they lecture you on guns like they have them in their living room and use them constantly. i like the ACR it looks cool, i know it as the 'magpul masdasa' but no one on COD as ever hear of the name. i would like to see pistols as secondary, they balance out the game and dont make it unfair. i would like them to make pistols louder to make them feel powerful rather than a crappy sound that seems quieter than a hole puncher--[[user:smish34|smish34]] 13:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

: Well, i always though that ACR looks terrible. First seen it in Future Weapons and only thing that i liked was fact that i can fire both 5.56 and 7.62. Intervention ? This is one of first guns that i heard about first in MW2. I imediattly googled some real life info about it :)

So did I. By the way, is it even called the Masada anymore? I thought Remington bought the rights and renamed it 'Remington ACR'. Oh well, either way I'm still gonna call it the Masada, it sounds better, and MW2 kiddies won't know what I'm talking about. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
:I always thought it was a silly name for a weapon. You ARE aware of what happened to Masada, correct? Yes, it's a great example of defiance in the face of incredible odds, but the fact remains, everyone eventually killed themselves. (Or each other, but you know what I mean.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It was designed by Magpul under the Masada name and then Bushmaster started building them. Then came Freedom group that bought Remington and they decided to buy bushmaster. So now the bushmaster ACR has the remington name on it even though they have nothing to do with design or manufacturing.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 16:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And I had no idea that happened to Masada, I'll have to look into that. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 17:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

:Well, from what I've heard as a heavy rumor from many places, tomorrow could be the release of the Black Ops Public Beta. It seems logical, as it gives roughly two and a bit months of Beta before it's closed so Treyarch can finish the game off for the November release, but then again maybe not. All I can say is, fingers crossed, because tomorrow we could be going deep and going hard men![[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Tommorrow? Now I seriously doubt that. I don't think they can just drop a public beta on us like that without an official announcement. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

:::It's happened before, and if not released tomorrow, maybe they announce it tomorrow then release for Monday. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-08-01T00:34:24Z

M14fanboy: /* New weapons! */

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-31T02:57:38Z

M14fanboy: /* New weapons! */

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-30T19:58:36Z

M14fanboy: /* New weapons! */

Talk:Smith & Wesson 5900 pistol series

2010-07-29T07:13:20Z

M14fanboy: /* Capacity */

the formatting on this page was messed up and it would NOT take my spacing edits, so I had to do some weird formatting to keep the page from being all weird. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 08:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My favorite is the 5946, it's not a very fancy or attractive gun but man it's good at it's job, shooting.

== Someone add Collateral ==

The 5906 is in Collateral and needs to be added to the list, I would do it but I don't know how to.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 00:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:Done. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 00:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

==5903==
Is the 5903 just the 5906 with a shorter slide?

==Capacity==
I've heard conflicting information, do these weapons hold 14 or 15 rounds as standard capacity. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

:As a friend of numerous RCMP officers who carry this as their sidearm, and a person who's both held and fired one, I can confirm that the 5906 atleast holds 15 rounds in the magazine. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-28T14:39:09Z

M14fanboy: /* New weapons! */

This game has a cold war look to it

==zombie mode==

will they have it? It is treyarch, but i havent heard anything solid yet.
:The article that I read (and summarized below) seemed to indicate that they had something other than zombies. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not copying spec ops.....

Maybe it's aliens.

Area 51 anyone? Eh? Eh? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==='''M16 is in.'''===

I am not sure which version is that, but i added it as A1.

It have been confirmed in '''Call of Duty:Black ops INSIGHT''' trailer.

Oh crap, they mentioned Sonny Puzikas, I remember that name from the spetsnaz episode of Deadliest Warrior.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"
:What the hell do you have with those movie guns ? Why should they be in ?

It would be amazing to see Sa. Vz. 58 there. It was frequently used by vietcong fighters as USSR´s help.

''''''Some good proofs''' :'''

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=691&sid=c3ccbd4348543db02c420df186cb428c ('' '''NVA training''''' )

http://www.quansuvn.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41.0;attach=4972;image

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=1169 ('' '''SSG Patrick Tadina with his Vz. 58''''' )

http://www.psywarrior.com/rewardforguns.gif ( '''''Vietcong fighters firearms info poster, left side, third from down''''' )

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1164/biethaisamopal9wq.jpg ( '''''Captured Vz. 58 on left''''' )

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/joshuadowdle/Dad.jpg ( '''''In hands of SSG Patrick Tadina''''' )

''SSG Patrick Tadina - Legendary, five-tour Vietnam ranger. He is in rangers´s hall of fame.''

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinkin' maybe they showed off the MW2 guns first to get MW2 fans interested in this game. Then maybe later they'll show off some new guns. Here's to hopin'. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 22:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

You don't get the fans back with the same old guns. You draw interests with NEW guns that hasn't been used before. Variety and distinctions. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Well how much differently could essentially just a shortened MP5 with a foregrip work from the regular MP5?

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.
:Look, I can understand having access to weapons no one has ever heard of at the time, but you can't have access to weapons if it doesnt EXIST in the world yet. I mean just because they are SOG doesn't mean they have their own special gunsmith to factory make new parts and designs for weapons that haven't been thought up yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

It's just like the Aperature sight in W@W, but no where near as bad. I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of it, sure it's not exactly authentic, but it's far from game ruining like what a lot of people here are saying.

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::'''Operation Flashpoint''', '''Rainbow Six: Raven Shield''' and '''Insurgency''' all did tactical reloads properly (ammunition is a number of magazines, not bullets, and if you reload a partially-empty mag it goes back in the pool), and the latter two also simulated +1 capacity. Insurgency is a mod but the other two are retail games. --[[User:MattyDienhoff|MattyDienhoff]] 20:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

......Why the hell wouldn't they take it seriously? You do know that the British had actually adopted a bullpup design in 1951 for a very short time. Search Em-2 Rifle. It even had a built in optical sight on the
carrying handle. We Yanks then bossed everybody into adopting the 7.62 and the EM-2 was abandoned because it was in the .280 round so they went with the FAL which could be much more easily changed to use the 7.62
Actually, the EM-2 would be a better choice for this game or the SA80 prototype that appeared in The Professionals. I am aware of the EM-2.
=== Bullpup guns ===

If they want bulpup gun in game why didnt they coice Em-2 ? Or Famas ? WHY THAT ANACHRONISTIC AUG, damn.
The FAMAS is even more anachronistic than the AUG. The FAMAS was adopted in the early eighties and it used a different type of 5.56 ammo than the NATO standard.

: Yeah. It get into service in eighties. But atleast there '''WERE''' first prototypes in 1968. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ummm...the prototypes of both the FAMAS and AUG were developed in the seventies. A better choice might be the Stoner 63 which had a history of use by the Navy SEALs and other clandestine units

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

The whole game looks suspiciously like MW2, just my opinion though. Hughjefender

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

I thought it was supposed to be a homage to 80's action movies. Or at least that's why I'm accepting it, because then I'll feel like I'm in an 80's action movie whenever I play this game. And what would an 80's action movie be without the SPAS-12 or the AUG? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

Hey, I'll take that over reloading ''two'' double barrel shotguns at the same time without dropping one anyday. [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

At least it's European, the Russians in MW2 carried Vectors and TAR-21s. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the AR-15 reload, it looked real. He pressed the mag release, he let the magazine fall to the ground, and he held it there until he put the new mag in. It's alot more realistic than the MW2 reloads, were you wave your gun around the screen while reloading either to look cool or to make it obvious that you are, in fact, reloading your weapon. Most of the time though, people don't do that when they reload in real life, unless they're an idiot. The .357 reload was kinda lazy though, but I let it slide because he actually whips the cylinder back in instead of the light tilt that's all it takes to swing the cylinder back in in MW2 and most other video games. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More noticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:Is it me or is the picture in the magazine a reverse shot? Because I see the forward assist on this A1 as well as the ejection on the right side. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up
[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Any links to zombies?

== Has it occured to anyone that the AR-15 variant is probably custom made? ==

Treyarch has said that these guys could have guns custom built just for them, which I feel explains things much more adequately than just saying that they're prototypes of future (to them) guns. My theory is that he had a CAR-15 custom made with a flat-top reciever for tactical reasons. Maybe this caught on with the rest of the team, and whatever manufacturer they got to make these guns for them sold the idea later on. Of course this is just an excuse for the guns having the rails just to free it up for attacthments in Multiplayer, but at least there is some kind of excuse. Unfortunately this theory doesn't cover the anachronistic appearances of the SPAS-12 and the AUG, but hey, no game ever get's all of it's guns 100% correct. 

Edit: Actually it just might explain the AUG, because all it really is is a combination of ideas taken from the Enfield EM-2, 
Korobov TKB-022, and several other abandoned designs from before or shortly after World War 2. The only thing it doesn't explain is why it has the production-style built in telescopic sight, instead of the original prototypes open sights:
[[http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_pr1.gif]]

== For those of you who may be confused about the supposed MP5/UMP hybrid ==

This is what I'm talkin about: 

[[Image:CODBO-SMG.jpg]] 

As you can see, it appears that it has the reciever and magazine housing of an MP5 or MP5K, while the barrel housing (correct me if I'm incorrect in calling it that) looks like that of a somewhat shortened UMP. If you look closely, you will note that it has the MP5Ks finger guard (I'm guessing that's what that is) directly below the muzzle that looks like a cut down version of the full handguard found in this picture: 

[[Image:MP5Kprototype.JPG]] 

My point is I don't think it's a hybrid at all, merely an MP5K missing it's forward vertical grip, for some reason or another. And seeing as every other aspect of the gun is that of an MP5Ks, I think it's safe to say that's what it is, so I'm gonna change it to that on the front page. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== G11 ==

Anyone else as excited as I am for the inclusion of the G11? [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just another anachronistic gun. Thats all. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure as heck am. --[[User:AK-74Fan|AK-74Fanc]] 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh the gun itself isn't that big of a deal to me, but I definitely am excited to see something that to my knowledge hasn't been in an FPS before. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Well, it have appeared already in few other FPS games. For example [[Delta Force: Land Warrior]], [[Global Operations]], [[IGI 2: Covert Strike]] or Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Those games are not up to the modern standard, though. ;) [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:Really, you could say this is the G11s first appearance in a well known game, and will finally show it off to the masses. I love the weapon itself, and to see it finally make a big appearance like this makes me quite happy.[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== XM214 Microgun ==

Since it's going to cover the Vietnam era, and the way these types of games like to go over the top, do you think there's a chance that the XM214 Microgun is going to make an appearance? I know it was only a prototype, and was it was made in the 70's, but I thought I read somewhere that the SF guys tried it out only to find that it was not feasable having a gun fire at 4,000 rpm.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think putting a Minigun in the game would be kind of stupid. I mean sure they could make it heavy and awkward to carry, but that thing would simply decimate anyone in it's path, whether they're behind light cover, in a vehicle or just in the open. I'd love one, but methinks not. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== A more plausable fictional AR-15 ==

I can understand a frankengun, like some special forces guy back then would take several kinds of AR-15 designs and mash them together until he gets an awesome gun that works. And being special forces, they can get whatever they want to suit their mission, so it would make sense for whatever they take to not be standard issue or that it is known, but I don't like the flip up iron sights since I don't know when flip up irons came about or the flat top receiver. It's like they just took a Colt Model 933 and replaced the stock with an old style stock from the CAR-15. I mean, put a telescoptic stock on an M16A1 rifle, or A2 upper reliever on the Car-15 and swap out the pistol grip or something. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:That would make sense considering the special forces style of the game. Also, Sonny (from Deadliest warrior and such) was on as an advisor for Spetsnaz and tactics, so look for both some epic Spetsnaz moves and even a character of him in game! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Do we even officially know yet what model AR-15 it is, aside of course from the flattop reciever and flip-up sights? [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 02:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much is a Colt Model 933 without a brass deflector or forward assist, which actual does not exist. I have not seen a flat top reciever without the forward assist and the brass deflector. I don't even think flip up irons were invented back then. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean if they threw in a CAR-15 tricked out like the ones seen in Black Hawk Down, I'd have no complaints [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

== New weapons! ==

Here's [[http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/File:GunWall.png]] a pic of a bunch of airsoft guns Treyarch has on a wall in their studio which pretty much confirms that they'll be in the game. 
From left to right, starting at the top: 
-M16A2 (?) 
-MAC-10 w/ supressor 
-AUG 
-Mini-Uzi 
-L85 
-Scorpion SA Vz 61 
-AKs-74u 
-Another Skorpion 
-SPAS-12 
-MP5 (?) 

Not sure exactly what the MP5 is doing as there already is the K variant prototype, and no idea what the HELL the M16A2 is doing there as there's already an M16A1 AND a CAR-15. What do you all think?
Sorry it's a bit blurry.

It could be a very blurry M16A1 or maybe because they somehow can bullshit their way into saying they got a prototype M16A2. And I prefer us to use the full size MP5 again. Looks like they got an L85 here. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

: That pic is here too :) Check out "extras" section in article :D

:The L85 got my gun-boner up, been wanting that since the MW2 L86 LSDisapointment. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::Dude, put that away. :P [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We might also see the Browning HP because of the rumored "Iranian Hostage Situation" level. [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]

:I wouldn't be surprised, but if I see another Desert Eagle, then I'll have to wtf. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::Deagle prototype and AA12 prototype + level is moved to Buckingham Pallace to add more drama to the game. [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]
:::Sorry, Buck Palace? Explain this? I assume this is a rumour, since so far Operation Nimrod has yet to be confirmed aswell. Sounds interesting though (if a little rediculous and implausible)
::::just kidding. I just jumped on the Black Ops bandwagon [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]

Im guessing the a2 is used since its more availible and when they do motion capture it would look the same. showing how someone moves with a m16 s what they're looking for,

:Also, the footage showing the Spetsnaz game models doing rolls shows the player holding and firing a clearly Vietnam era M16A1, so that's there for sure. Also, I do believe the Iranian Embassy raid will be tacked on much like Mile high Club in CoD 4, simple as a fun epilogue style bonus mission. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I really hope there's a Browning HP, cause it's cool and cause I'm Canadian lol. It might be in to be honest because in COD4 the Overkill and Last Stand pics had a Glock and then it was added in MW2, and the Overkill pic in WAW was a Browning HP :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope its just "iranian embassy raid inspired", not the real thing, i want more than 6 guys to shoot.

:This is Call of Duty, so you'll always have plenty of enemies to shoot. And yeah Alex, as a fellow Canadian, a Hi-Power would be a nice handgun to have in the game, and period correct. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

As much as I love the Hi Power and actually owning one, I don't want to see one in a game such as call of duty just because of the attention it will recieve from nerds spamming videos on youtube "HEY THIS GUN IS IN CALL OF DUTY!!!!1" It gets really annoying and that kind of attention seems negative to those that actually collect guns. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:Partially agree with you there. I hate the attention guns get from these games (and suddenly every 12 year old becoming a firearms expert [yes, obviously the M16 is better than the AUG just because CoD says so]) but, I enjoy being able to play with them. Win some, loose some. Well, one or two firearms forums have noticed a HUGE increase in the number of people looking for the 'ACR'. As have a few rifle stores in the 'States that I know of have been plagued by idiot teens looking for hi-tech military grade gear...

I hope there is a HP, they need a 9mm gun for MP (more ammo, less recoil, but less damage) and Id rather see a cool gun then a lame generic beretta coming in.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Browning HP, (heck Indiana Jones used one, who wouldn't?) But then again it may look just a little bit too similar to the M1911 that's already confirmed for this game, so it's addition might be just a little visually redundant. [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 05:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:Maybe so, maybe not, but all I'd like to hope is that the bloody ACR doesn't return, or else I'm burning down Treyarch studios. Honestly, MW2 just had cool and shiny guns that everyone would like, as opposed to realistic and proper guns used by militaries and militias. Of course the AK needs rails and a retractable stock, that makes it cooler! And of course we have the Barret, because it's big and makes a loud boom! And of course we have a Glock 18, because it's a Glock! I swear, it's like the IW developers had no idea what real special forces, Rangers, Spetsnaz and Militia would be equipped with, and instead went solely with cool, popular and impractical guns. Black Ops sounds like it's trying to be period correct, or at least have some different guns that other games. Sure there's an anachronistic AUG, but atleast it's not an ACR or Intervention in 1968! Rant complete! Also, I've heard lots of rumours of the Beta being released August 1st, anyone got any info on that? [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-26T22:02:00Z

M14fanboy: /* New weapons! */

This game has a cold war look to it

==zombie mode==

will they have it? It is treyarch, but i havent heard anything solid yet.
:The article that I read (and summarized below) seemed to indicate that they had something other than zombies. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not copying spec ops.....

Maybe it's aliens.

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==='''M16 is in.'''===

I am not sure which version is that, but i added it as A1.

It have been confirmed in '''Call of Duty:Black ops INSIGHT''' trailer.

Oh crap, they mentioned Sonny Puzikas, I remember that name from the spetsnaz episode of Deadliest Warrior.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"
:What the hell do you have with those movie guns ? Why should they be in ?

It would be amazing to see Sa. Vz. 58 there. It was frequently used by vietcong fighters as USSR´s help.

''''''Some good proofs''' :'''

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=691&sid=c3ccbd4348543db02c420df186cb428c ('' '''NVA training''''' )

http://www.quansuvn.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41.0;attach=4972;image

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=1169 ('' '''SSG Patrick Tadina with his Vz. 58''''' )

http://www.psywarrior.com/rewardforguns.gif ( '''''Vietcong fighters firearms info poster, left side, third from down''''' )

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1164/biethaisamopal9wq.jpg ( '''''Captured Vz. 58 on left''''' )

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/joshuadowdle/Dad.jpg ( '''''In hands of SSG Patrick Tadina''''' )

''SSG Patrick Tadina - Legendary, five-tour Vietnam ranger. He is in rangers´s hall of fame.''

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Well how much differently could essentially just a shortened MP5 with a foregrip work from the regular MP5?

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

It's just like the Aperature sight in W@W, but no where near as bad. I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of it, sure it's not exactly authentic, but it's far from game ruining like what a lot of people here are saying.

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::'''Operation Flashpoint''', '''Rainbow Six: Raven Shield''' and '''Insurgency''' all did tactical reloads properly (ammunition is a number of magazines, not bullets, and if you reload a partially-empty mag it goes back in the pool), and the latter two also simulated +1 capacity. Insurgency is a mod but the other two are retail games. --[[User:MattyDienhoff|MattyDienhoff]] 20:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

......Why the hell wouldn't they take it seriously? You do know that the British had actually adopted a bullpup design in 1951 for a very short time. Search Em-2 Rifle. It even had a built in optical sight on the
carrying handle. We Yanks then bossed everybody into adopting the 7.62 and the EM-2 was abandoned because it was in the .280 round so they went with the FAL which could be much more easily changed to use the 7.62
Actually, the EM-2 would be a better choice for this game or the SA80 prototype that appeared in The Professionals. I am aware of the EM-2.
=== Bullpup guns ===

If they want bulpup gun in game why didnt they coice Em-2 ? Or Famas ? WHY THAT ANACHRONISTIC AUG, damn.
The FAMAS is even more anachronistic than the AUG. The FAMAS was adopted in the early eighties and it used a different type of 5.56 ammo than the NATO standard.

: Yeah. It get into service in eighties. But atleast there '''WERE''' first prototypes in 1968. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ummm...the prototypes of both the FAMAS and AUG were developed in the seventies. A better choice might be the Stoner 63 which had a history of use by the Navy SEALs and other clandestine units

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

The whole game looks suspiciously like MW2, just my opinion though. Hughjefender

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

I thought it was supposed to be a homage to 80's action movies. Or at least that's why I'm accepting it, because then I'll feel like I'm in an 80's action movie whenever I play this game. And what would an 80's action movie be without the SPAS-12 or the AUG? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

At least it's European, the Russians in MW2 carried Vectors and TAR-21s. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the AR-15 reload, it looked real. He pressed the mag release, he let the magazine fall to the ground, and he held it there until he put the new mag in. It's alot more realistic as opposed to the MW2 reloads, were you wave your gun around the screen while reloading either to look cool or to makeit obvious that you are, in fact, reloading your weapon. Most of the time though, people don't do that when they reload in real life, unless they're an idiot. The .357 reload was kinda lazy though, but I let it slide because he actually whips the cylinder back in instead of the light tilt that's all it takes to swing the cylinder back in in MW2 and most other video games. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More oticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:Is it me or is the picture in the magazine a reverse shot? Because I see the forward assist on this A1 as well as the ejection on the right side. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up
[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Any links to zombies?

== Has it occured to anyone that the AR-15 variant is probably custom made? ==

Treyarch has said that these guys could have guns custom built just for them, which I feel explains things much more adequately than just saying that they're prototypes of future (to them) guns. My theory is that he had a CAR-15 custom made with a flat-top reciever for tactical reasons. Maybe this caught on with the rest of the team, and whatever manufacturer they got to make these guns for them sold the idea later on. Of course this is just an excuse for the guns having the rails just to free it up for attacthments in Multiplayer, but at least there is some kind of excuse. Unfortunately this theory doesn't cover the anachronistic appearances of the SPAS-12 and the AUG, but hey, no game ever get's all of it's guns 100% correct. 

Edit: Actually it just might explain the AUG, because all it really is is a combination of ideas taken from the Enfield EM-2, 
Korobov TKB-022, and several other abandoned designs from before or shortly after World War 2. The only thing it doesn't explain is why it has the production-style built in telescopic sight, instead of the original prototypes open sights:
[[http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_pr1.gif]]

== For those of you who may be confused about the supposed MP5/UMP hybrid ==

This is what I'm talkin about: 

[[Image:CODBO-SMG.jpg]] 

As you can see, it appears that it has the reciever and magazine housing of an MP5 or MP5K, while the barrel housing (correct me if I'm incorrect in calling it that) looks like that of a somewhat shortened UMP. If you look closely, you will note that it has the MP5Ks finger guard (I'm guessing that's what that is) directly below the muzzle that looks like a cut down version of the full handguard found in this picture: 

[[Image:MP5Kprototype.JPG]] 

My point is I don't think it's a hybrid at all, merely an MP5K missing it's forward vertical grip, for some reason or another. And seeing as every other aspect of the gun is that of an MP5Ks, I think it's safe to say that's what it is, so I'm gonna change it to that on the front page. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== G11 ==

Anyone else as excited as I am for the inclusion of the G11? [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just another anachronistic gun. Thats all. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure as heck am. --[[User:AK-74Fan|AK-74Fanc]] 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh the gun itself isn't that big of a deal to me, but I definitely am excited to see something that to my knowledge hasn't been in an FPS before. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Well, it have appeared already in few other FPS games. For example [[Delta Force: Land Warrior]], [[Global Operations]], [[IGI 2: Covert Strike]] or Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Those games are not up to the modern standard, though. ;) [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:Really, you could say this is the G11s first appearance in a well known game, and will finally show it off to the masses. I love the weapon itself, and to see it finally make a big appearance like this makes me quite happy.[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== XM214 Microgun ==

Since it's going to cover the Vietnam era, and the way these types of games like to go over the top, do you think there's a chance that the XM214 Microgun is going to make an appearance? I know it was only a prototype, and was it was made in the 70's, but I thought I read somewhere that the SF guys tried it out only to find that it was not feasable having a gun fire at 4,000 rpm.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think putting a Minigun in the game would be kind of stupid. I mean sure they could make it heavy and awkward to carry, but that thing would simply decimate anyone in it's path, whether they're behind light cover, in a vehicle or just in the open. I'd love one, but methinks not. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== A more plausable fictional AR-15 ==

I can understand a frankengun, like some special forces guy back then would take several kinds of AR-15 designs and mash them together until he gets an awesome gun that works. And being special forces, they can get whatever they want to suit their mission, so it would make sense for whatever they take to not be standard issue or that it is known, but I don't like the flip up iron sights since I don't know when flip up irons came about or the flat top receiver. It's like they just took a Colt Model 933 and replaced the stock with an old style stock from the CAR-15. I mean, put a telescoptic stock on an M16A1 rifle, or A2 upper reliever on the Car-15 and swap out the pistol grip or something. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:That would make sense considering the special forces style of the game. Also, Sonny (from Deadliest warrior and such) was on as an advisor for Spetsnaz and tactics, so look for both some epic Spetsnaz moves and even a character of him in game! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Do we even officially know yet what model AR-15 it is, aside of course from the flattop reciever and flip-up sights? [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 02:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much is a Colt Model 933 without a brass deflector or forward assist, which actual does not exist. I have not seen a flat top reciever without the forward assist and the brass deflector. I don't even think flip up irons were invented back then. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean if they threw in a CAR-15 tricked out like the ones seen in Black Hawk Down, I'd have no complaints [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

== New weapons! ==

Here's [[http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/File:GunWall.png]] a pic of a bunch of airsoft guns Treyarch has on a wall in their studio which pretty much confirms that they'll be in the game. 
From left to right, starting at the top: 
-M16A2 (?) 
-MAC-10 w/ supressor 
-AUG 
-Mini-Uzi 
-L85 
-Scorpion SA Vz 61 
-AKs-74u 
-Another Skorpion 
-SPAS-12 
-MP5 (?) 

Not sure exactly what the MP5 is doing as there already is the K variant prototype, and no idea what the HELL the M16A2 is doing there as there's already an M16A1 AND a CAR-15. What do you all think?
Sorry it's a bit blurry.

It could be a very blurry M16A1 or maybe because they somehow can bullshit their way into saying they got a prototype M16A2. And I prefer us to use the full size MP5 again. Looks like they got an L85 here. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

: That pic is here too :) Check out "extras" section in article :D

:The L85 got my gun-boner up, been wanting that since the MW2 L86 LSDisapointment. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::Dude, put that away. :P [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We might also see the Browning HP because of the rumored "Iranian Hostage Situation" level. [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]

:I wouldn't be surprised, but if I see another Desert Eagle, then I'll have to wtf. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::Deagle prototype and AA12 prototype + level is moved to Buckingham Pallace to add more drama to the game. [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]
:::Sorry, Buck Palace? Explain this? I assume this is a rumour, since so far Operation Nimrod has yet to be confirmed aswell. Sounds interesting though (if a little rediculous and implausible)
::::just kidding. I just jumped on the Black Ops bandwagon [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]

Im guessing the a2 is used since its more availible and when they do motion capture it would look the same. showing how someone moves with a m16 s what they're looking for,

:Also, the footage showing the Spetsnaz game models doing rolls shows the player holding and firing a clearly Vietnam era M16A1, so that's there for sure. Also, I do believe the Iranian Embassy raid will be tacked on much like Mile high Club in CoD 4, simple as a fun epilogue style bonus mission. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I really hope there's a Browning HP, cause it's cool and cause I'm Canadian lol. It might be in to be honest because in COD4 the Overkill and Last Stand pics had a Glock and then it was added in MW2, and the Overkill pic in WAW was a Browning HP :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope its just "iranian embassy raid inspired", not the real thing, i want more than 6 guys to shoot.

:This is Call of Duty, so you'll always have plenty of enemies to shoot. And yeah Alex, as a fellow Canadian, a Hi-Power would be a nice handgun to have in the game, and period correct. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:GoldenEye 007 (2010)

2010-07-25T00:36:32Z

M14fanboy:

Does anyone know what kind of [[Heckler & Koch MP5]] is used in the game?
:Well have any images of it been released? --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe so, the creators were talking about "German Submachine guns" being used in the game so it will most likely show up. Did anyone else see the Beretta m93r being used by jaws briefly in the trailer? -GunCrazy93

:Looks like a cool game, but Wii exclusive? I know they were going for authenticity, but lets be honest, most of us who played Goldeneye have moved on to PS3 or 360 now, and I doubt that many of us own Wii's, atleast I don't. I was almost excited for this before I read only on the Wii, then it killed it for me. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::That's the first thing that I thought too. They're going to give FPS players this gift, a remake of a game that brought FPSs to consoles in the first place... and put it on the worst console for FPSs. It's exclusive on the only console that isn't in HD. I hope it's only exclusive for a short time. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
:Indeed Funky, if this stays on Wii, they should expect low sales and constant begging and requests from us serious gamers for it to be proted to proper consoles like PS3 and Xbox 360. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
The thread starter is talking, I have the screen-shots of the MP5 in the game. I hope you can identify it.
[[Image:Ge2010_mp5_1.jpg|400px|thumb|none|Screen-Shot of the H&K MP5 (1)]]
[[Image:Ge2010_mp5_2.jpg|400px|thumb|none|Screen-Shot of the H&K MP5 (2)]]
[[Image:Ge2010_mp5_3.jpg|400px|thumb|none|Screen-Shot of the H&K MP5 (3)]]

It is MP5A1, I presume.

Talk:GoldenEye 007 (2010)

2010-07-24T03:33:35Z

M14fanboy:

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-24T03:30:04Z

M14fanboy: /* New weapons! */

This game has a cold war look to it

==zombie mode==

will they have it? It is treyarch, but i havent heard anything solid yet.
:The article that I read (and summarized below) seemed to indicate that they had something other than zombies. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not copying spec ops.....

Maybe it's aliens.

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==='''M16 is in.'''===

I am not sure which version is that, but i added it as A1.

It have been confirmed in '''Call of Duty:Black ops INSIGHT''' trailer.

Oh crap, they mentioned Sonny Puzikas, I remember that name from the spetsnaz episode of Deadliest Warrior.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"
:What the hell do you have with those movie guns ? Why should they be in ?

It would be amazing to see Sa. Vz. 58 there. It was frequently used by vietcong fighters as USSR´s help.

''''''Some good proofs''' :'''

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=691&sid=c3ccbd4348543db02c420df186cb428c ('' '''NVA training''''' )

http://www.quansuvn.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41.0;attach=4972;image

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=1169 ('' '''SSG Patrick Tadina with his Vz. 58''''' )

http://www.psywarrior.com/rewardforguns.gif ( '''''Vietcong fighters firearms info poster, left side, third from down''''' )

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1164/biethaisamopal9wq.jpg ( '''''Captured Vz. 58 on left''''' )

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/joshuadowdle/Dad.jpg ( '''''In hands of SSG Patrick Tadina''''' )

''SSG Patrick Tadina - Legendary, five-tour Vietnam ranger. He is in rangers´s hall of fame.''

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Well how much differently could essentially just a shortened MP5 with a foregrip work from the regular MP5?

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

It's just like the Aperature sight in W@W, but no where near as bad. I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of it, sure it's not exactly authentic, but it's far from game ruining like what a lot of people here are saying.

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::'''Operation Flashpoint''', '''Rainbow Six: Raven Shield''' and '''Insurgency''' all did tactical reloads properly (ammunition is a number of magazines, not bullets, and if you reload a partially-empty mag it goes back in the pool), and the latter two also simulated +1 capacity. Insurgency is a mod but the other two are retail games. --[[User:MattyDienhoff|MattyDienhoff]] 20:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

......Why the hell wouldn't they take it seriously? You do know that the British had actually adopted a bullpup design in 1951 for a very short time. Search Em-2 Rifle. It even had a built in optical sight on the
carrying handle. We Yanks then bossed everybody into adopting the 7.62 and the EM-2 was abandoned because it was in the .280 round so they went with the FAL which could be much more easily changed to use the 7.62
Actually, the EM-2 would be a better choice for this game or the SA80 prototype that appeared in The Professionals. I am aware of the EM-2.
=== Bullpup guns ===

If they want bulpup gun in game why didnt they coice Em-2 ? Or Famas ? WHY THAT ANACHRONISTIC AUG, damn.
The FAMAS is even more anachronistic than the AUG. The FAMAS was adopted in the early eighties and it used a different type of 5.56 ammo than the NATO standard.

: Yeah. It get into service in eighties. But atleast there '''WERE''' first prototypes in 1968. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ummm...the prototypes of both the FAMAS and AUG were developed in the seventies. A better choice might be the Stoner 63 which had a history of use by the Navy SEALs and other clandestine units

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

The whole game looks suspiciously like MW2, just my opinion though. Hughjefender

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

I thought it was supposed to be a homage to 80's action movies. Or at least that's why I'm accepting it, because then I'll feel like I'm in an 80's action movie whenever I play this game. And what would an 80's action movie be without the SPAS-12 or the AUG? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

At least it's European, the Russians in MW2 carried Vectors and TAR-21s. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the AR-15 reload, it looked real. He pressed the mag release, he let the magazine fall to the ground, and he held it there until he put the new mag in. It's alot more realistic as opposed to the MW2 reloads, were you wave your gun around the screen while reloading either to look cool or to makeit obvious that you are, in fact, reloading your weapon. Most of the time though, people don't do that when they reload in real life, unless they're an idiot. The .357 reload was kinda lazy though, but I let it slide because he actually whips the cylinder back in instead of the light tilt that's all it takes to swing the cylinder back in in MW2 and most other video games. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More oticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:Is it me or is the picture in the magazine a reverse shot? Because I see the forward assist on this A1 as well as the ejection on the right side. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up
[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Any links to zombies?

== Has it occured to anyone that the AR-15 variant is probably custom made? ==

Treyarch has said that these guys could have guns custom built just for them, which I feel explains things much more adequately than just saying that they're prototypes of future (to them) guns. My theory is that he had a CAR-15 custom made with a flat-top reciever for tactical reasons. Maybe this caught on with the rest of the team, and whatever manufacturer they got to make these guns for them sold the idea later on. Of course this is just an excuse for the guns having the rails just to free it up for attacthments in Multiplayer, but at least there is some kind of excuse. Unfortunately this theory doesn't cover the anachronistic appearances of the SPAS-12 and the AUG, but hey, no game ever get's all of it's guns 100% correct. 

Edit: Actually it just might explain the AUG, because all it really is is a combination of ideas taken from the Enfield EM-2, 
Korobov TKB-022, and several other abandoned designs from before or shortly after World War 2. The only thing it doesn't explain is why it has the production-style built in telescopic sight, instead of the original prototypes open sights:
[[http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_pr1.gif]]

== For those of you who may be confused about the supposed MP5/UMP hybrid ==

This is what I'm talkin about: 

[[Image:CODBO-SMG.jpg]] 

As you can see, it appears that it has the reciever and magazine housing of an MP5 or MP5K, while the barrel housing (correct me if I'm incorrect in calling it that) looks like that of a somewhat shortened UMP. If you look closely, you will note that it has the MP5Ks finger guard (I'm guessing that's what that is) directly below the muzzle that looks like a cut down version of the full handguard found in this picture: 

[[Image:MP5Kprototype.JPG]] 

My point is I don't think it's a hybrid at all, merely an MP5K missing it's forward vertical grip, for some reason or another. And seeing as every other aspect of the gun is that of an MP5Ks, I think it's safe to say that's what it is, so I'm gonna change it to that on the front page. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== G11 ==

Anyone else as excited as I am for the inclusion of the G11? [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just another anachronistic gun. Thats all. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure as heck am. --[[User:AK-74Fan|AK-74Fanc]] 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh the gun itself isn't that big of a deal to me, but I definitely am excited to see something that to my knowledge hasn't been in an FPS before. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Well, it have appeared already in few other FPS games. For example [[Delta Force: Land Warrior]], [[Global Operations]], [[IGI 2: Covert Strike]] or Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Those games are not up to the modern standard, though. ;) [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:Really, you could say this is the G11s first appearance in a well known game, and will finally show it off to the masses. I love the weapon itself, and to see it finally make a big appearance like this makes me quite happy.[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== XM214 Microgun ==

Since it's going to cover the Vietnam era, and the way these types of games like to go over the top, do you think there's a chance that the XM214 Microgun is going to make an appearance? I know it was only a prototype, and was it was made in the 70's, but I thought I read somewhere that the SF guys tried it out only to find that it was not feasable having a gun fire at 4,000 rpm.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think putting a Minigun in the game would be kind of stupid. I mean sure they could make it heavy and awkward to carry, but that thing would simply decimate anyone in it's path, whether they're behind light cover, in a vehicle or just in the open. I'd love one, but methinks not. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== A more plausable fictional AR-15 ==

I can understand a frankengun, like some special forces guy back then would take several kinds of AR-15 designs and mash them together until he gets an awesome gun that works. And being special forces, they can get whatever they want to suit their mission, so it would make sense for whatever they take to not be standard issue or that it is known, but I don't like the flip up iron sights since I don't know when flip up irons came about or the flat top receiver. It's like they just took a Colt Model 933 and replaced the stock with an old style stock from the CAR-15. I mean, put a telescoptic stock on an M16A1 rifle, or A2 upper reliever on the Car-15 and swap out the pistol grip or something. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:That would make sense considering the special forces style of the game. Also, Sonny (from Deadliest warrior and such) was on as an advisor for Spetsnaz and tactics, so look for both some epic Spetsnaz moves and even a character of him in game! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Do we even officially know yet what model AR-15 it is, aside of course from the flattop reciever and flip-up sights? [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 02:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much is a Colt Model 933 without a brass deflector or forward assist, which actual does not exist. I have not seen a flat top reciever without the forward assist and the brass deflector. I don't even think flip up irons were invented back then. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean if they threw in a CAR-15 tricked out like the ones seen in Black Hawk Down, I'd have no complaints [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

== New weapons! ==

Here's [[http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/File:GunWall.png]] a pic of a bunch of airsoft guns Treyarch has on a wall in their studio which pretty much confirms that they'll be in the game. 
From left to right, starting at the top: 
-M16A2 (?) 
-MAC-10 w/ supressor 
-AUG 
-Mini-Uzi 
-L85 
-Scorpion SA Vz 61 
-AKs-74u 
-Another Skorpion 
-SPAS-12 
-MP5 (?) 

Not sure exactly what the MP5 is doing as there already is the K variant prototype, and no idea what the HELL the M16A2 is doing there as there's already an M16A1 AND a CAR-15. What do you all think?
Sorry it's a bit blurry.

It could be a very blurry M16A1 or maybe because they somehow can bullshit their way into saying they got a prototype M16A2. And I prefer us to use the full size MP5 again. Looks like they got an L85 here. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

: That pic is here too :) Check out "extras" section in article :D

:The L85 got my gun-boner up, been wanting that since the MW2 L86 LSDisapointment. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::Dude, put that away. :P [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We might also see the Browning HP because of the rumored "Iranian Hostage Situation" level. [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]

:I wouldn't be surprised, but if I see another Desert Eagle, then I'll have to wtf. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::Deagle prototype and AA12 prototype + level is moved to Buckingham Pallace to add more drama to the game. [[User:Orita Md.41|Orita Md.41]]
:::Sorry, Buck Palace? Explain this? I assume this is a rumour, since so far Operation Nimrod has yet to be confirmed aswell. Sounds interesting though (if a little rediculous and implausible)

Im guessing the a2 is used since its more availible and when they do motion capture it would look the same. showing how someone moves with a m16 s what they're looking for,

:Also, the footage showing the Spetsnaz game models doing rolls shows the player holding and firing a clearly Vietnam era M16A1, so that's there for sure. Also, I do believe the Iranian Embassy raid will be tacked on much like Mile high Club in CoD 4, simple as a fun epilogue style bonus mission. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-22T17:28:15Z

M14fanboy: /* New weapons! */

This game has a cold war look to it

==zombie mode==

will they have it? It is treyarch, but i havent heard anything solid yet.
:The article that I read (and summarized below) seemed to indicate that they had something other than zombies. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not copying spec ops.....

Maybe it's aliens.

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==='''M16 is in.'''===

I am not sure which version is that, but i added it as A1.

It have been confirmed in '''Call of Duty:Black ops INSIGHT''' trailer.

Oh crap, they mentioned Sonny Puzikas, I remember that name from the spetsnaz episode of Deadliest Warrior.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"
:What the hell do you have with those movie guns ? Why should they be in ?

It would be amazing to see Sa. Vz. 58 there. It was frequently used by vietcong fighters as USSR´s help.

''''''Some good proofs''' :'''

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=691&sid=c3ccbd4348543db02c420df186cb428c ('' '''NVA training''''' )

http://www.quansuvn.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41.0;attach=4972;image

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=1169 ('' '''SSG Patrick Tadina with his Vz. 58''''' )

http://www.psywarrior.com/rewardforguns.gif ( '''''Vietcong fighters firearms info poster, left side, third from down''''' )

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1164/biethaisamopal9wq.jpg ( '''''Captured Vz. 58 on left''''' )

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/joshuadowdle/Dad.jpg ( '''''In hands of SSG Patrick Tadina''''' )

''SSG Patrick Tadina - Legendary, five-tour Vietnam ranger. He is in rangers´s hall of fame.''

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Well how much differently could essentially just a shortened MP5 with a foregrip work from the regular MP5?

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

It's just like the Aperature sight in W@W, but no where near as bad. I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of it, sure it's not exactly authentic, but it's far from game ruining like what a lot of people here are saying.

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

......Why the hell wouldn't they take it seriously? You do know that the British had actually adopted a bullpup design in 1951 for a very short time. Search Em-2 Rifle. It even had a built in optical sight on the
carrying handle. We Yanks then bossed everybody into adopting the 7.62 and the EM-2 was abandoned because it was in the .280 round so they went with the FAL which could be much more easily changed to use the 7.62
Actually, the EM-2 would be a better choice for this game or the SA80 prototype that appeared in The Professionals. I am aware of the EM-2.
=== Bullpup guns ===

If they want bulpup gun in game why didnt they coice Em-2 ? Or Famas ? WHY THAT ANACHRONISTIC AUG, damn.
The FAMAS is even more anachronistic than the AUG. The FAMAS was adopted in the early eighties and it used a different type of 5.56 ammo than the NATO standard.

: Yeah. It get into service in eighties. But atleast there '''WERE''' first prototypes in 1968. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ummm...the prototypes of both the FAMAS and AUG were developed in the seventies. A better choice might be the Stoner 63 which had a history of use by the Navy SEALs and other clandestine units

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

The whole game looks suspiciously like MW2, just my opinion though. Hughjefender

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

I thought it was supposed to be a homage to 80's action movies. Or at least that's why I'm accepting it, because then I'll feel like I'm in an 80's action movie whenever I play this game. And what would an 80's action movie be without the SPAS-12 or the AUG? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

At least it's European, the Russians in MW2 carried Vectors and TAR-21s. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the AR-15 reload, it looked real. He pressed the mag release, he let the magazine fall to the ground, and he held it there until he put the new mag in. It's alot more realistic as opposed to the MW2 reloads, were you wave your gun around the screen while reloading either to look cool or to makeit obvious that you are, in fact, reloading your weapon. Most of the time though, people don't do that when they reload in real life, unless they're an idiot. The .357 reload was kinda lazy though, but I let it slide because he actually whips the cylinder back in instead of the light tilt that's all it takes to swing the cylinder back in in MW2 and most other video games. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More oticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:Is it me or is the picture in the magazine a reverse shot? Because I see the forward assist on this A1 as well as the ejection on the right side. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up
[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Any links to zombies?

== Has it occured to anyone that the AR-15 variant is probably custom made? ==

Treyarch has said that these guys could have guns custom built just for them, which I feel explains things much more adequately than just saying that they're prototypes of future (to them) guns. My theory is that he had a CAR-15 custom made with a flat-top reciever for tactical reasons. Maybe this caught on with the rest of the team, and whatever manufacturer they got to make these guns for them sold the idea later on. Of course this is just an excuse for the guns having the rails just to free it up for attacthments in Multiplayer, but at least there is some kind of excuse. Unfortunately this theory doesn't cover the anachronistic appearances of the SPAS-12 and the AUG, but hey, no game ever get's all of it's guns 100% correct. 

Edit: Actually it just might explain the AUG, because all it really is is a combination of ideas taken from the Enfield EM-2, 
Korobov TKB-022, and several other abandoned designs from before or shortly after World War 2. The only thing it doesn't explain is why it has the production-style built in telescopic sight, instead of the original prototypes open sights:
[[http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_pr1.gif]]

== For those of you who may be confused about the supposed MP5/UMP hybrid ==

This is what I'm talkin about: 

[[Image:CODBO-SMG.jpg]] 

As you can see, it appears that it has the reciever and magazine housing of an MP5 or MP5K, while the barrel housing (correct me if I'm incorrect in calling it that) looks like that of a somewhat shortened UMP. If you look closely, you will note that it has the MP5Ks finger guard (I'm guessing that's what that is) directly below the muzzle that looks like a cut down version of the full handguard found in this picture: 

[[Image:MP5Kprototype.JPG]] 

My point is I don't think it's a hybrid at all, merely an MP5K missing it's forward vertical grip, for some reason or another. And seeing as every other aspect of the gun is that of an MP5Ks, I think it's safe to say that's what it is, so I'm gonna change it to that on the front page. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== G11 ==

Anyone else as excited as I am for the inclusion of the G11? [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just another anachronistic gun. Thats all. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure as heck am. --[[User:AK-74Fan|AK-74Fanc]] 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh the gun itself isn't that big of a deal to me, but I definitely am excited to see something that to my knowledge hasn't been in an FPS before. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Well, it have appeared already in few other FPS games. For example [[Delta Force: Land Warrior]], [[Global Operations]], [[IGI 2: Covert Strike]] or Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Those games are not up to the modern standard, though. ;) [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:Really, you could say this is the G11s first appearance in a well known game, and will finally show it off to the masses. I love the weapon itself, and to see it finally make a big appearance like this makes me quite happy.[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== XM214 Microgun ==

Since it's going to cover the Vietnam era, and the way these types of games like to go over the top, do you think there's a chance that the XM214 Microgun is going to make an appearance? I know it was only a prototype, and was it was made in the 70's, but I thought I read somewhere that the SF guys tried it out only to find that it was not feasable having a gun fire at 4,000 rpm.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think putting a Minigun in the game would be kind of stupid. I mean sure they could make it heavy and awkward to carry, but that thing would simply decimate anyone in it's path, whether they're behind light cover, in a vehicle or just in the open. I'd love one, but methinks not. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== A more plausable fictional AR-15 ==

I can understand a frankengun, like some special forces guy back then would take several kinds of AR-15 designs and mash them together until he gets an awesome gun that works. And being special forces, they can get whatever they want to suit their mission, so it would make sense for whatever they take to not be standard issue or that it is known, but I don't like the flip up iron sights since I don't know when flip up irons came about or the flat top receiver. It's like they just took a Colt Model 933 and replaced the stock with an old style stock from the CAR-15. I mean, put a telescoptic stock on an M16A1 rifle, or A2 upper reliever on the Car-15 and swap out the pistol grip or something. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:That would make sense considering the special forces style of the game. Also, Sonny (from Deadliest warrior and such) was on as an advisor for Spetsnaz and tactics, so look for both some epic Spetsnaz moves and even a character of him in game! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Do we even officially know yet what model AR-15 it is, aside of course from the flattop reciever and flip-up sights? [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 02:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much is a Colt Model 933 without a brass deflector or forward assist, which actual does not exist. I have not seen a flat top reciever without the forward assist and the brass deflector. I don't even think flip up irons were invented back then. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean if they threw in a CAR-15 tricked out like the ones seen in Black Hawk Down, I'd have no complaints [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

== New weapons! ==

Here's [[http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/File:GunWall.png]] a pic of a bunch of airsoft guns Treyarch has on a wall in their studio which pretty much confirms that they'll be in the game. 
From left to right, starting at the top: 
-M16A2 (?) 
-MAC-10 w/ supressor 
-AUG 
-Mini-Uzi 
-L85 
-Scorpion SA Vz 61 
-AKs-74u 
-Another Skorpion 
-SPAS-12 
-MP5 (?) 

Not sure exactly what the MP5 is doing as there already is the K variant prototype, and no idea what the HELL the M16A2 is doing there as there's already an M16A1 AND a CAR-15. What do you all think?
Sorry it's a bit blurry.

It could be a very blurry M16A1 or maybe because they somehow can bullshit their way into saying they got a prototype M16A2. And I prefer us to use the full size MP5 again. Looks like they got an L85 here. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

: That pic is here too :) Check out "extras" section in article :D

:The L85 got my gun-boner up, been wanting that since the MW2 L86 LSDisapointment. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::Dude, put that away. :P [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We might also see the Browning HP because of the rumored "Iranian Hostage Situation" level.

:I wouldn't be surprised, but if I see another Desert Eagle, then I'll have to wtf. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-22T08:27:35Z

M14fanboy: /* New weapons! */

This game has a cold war look to it

==zombie mode==

will they have it? It is treyarch, but i havent heard anything solid yet.
:The article that I read (and summarized below) seemed to indicate that they had something other than zombies. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not copying spec ops.....

Maybe it's aliens.

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==='''M16 is in.'''===

I am not sure which version is that, but i added it as A1.

It have been confirmed in '''Call of Duty:Black ops INSIGHT''' trailer.

Oh crap, they mentioned Sonny Puzikas, I remember that name from the spetsnaz episode of Deadliest Warrior.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"
:What the hell do you have with those movie guns ? Why should they be in ?

It would be amazing to see Sa. Vz. 58 there. It was frequently used by vietcong fighters as USSR´s help.

''''''Some good proofs''' :'''

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=691&sid=c3ccbd4348543db02c420df186cb428c ('' '''NVA training''''' )

http://www.quansuvn.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41.0;attach=4972;image

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=1169 ('' '''SSG Patrick Tadina with his Vz. 58''''' )

http://www.psywarrior.com/rewardforguns.gif ( '''''Vietcong fighters firearms info poster, left side, third from down''''' )

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1164/biethaisamopal9wq.jpg ( '''''Captured Vz. 58 on left''''' )

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/joshuadowdle/Dad.jpg ( '''''In hands of SSG Patrick Tadina''''' )

''SSG Patrick Tadina - Legendary, five-tour Vietnam ranger. He is in rangers´s hall of fame.''

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Well how much differently could essentially just a shortened MP5 with a foregrip work from the regular MP5?

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

It's just like the Aperature sight in W@W, but no where near as bad. I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of it, sure it's not exactly authentic, but it's far from game ruining like what a lot of people here are saying.

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

......Why the hell wouldn't they take it seriously? You do know that the British had actually adopted a bullpup design in 1951 for a very short time. Search Em-2 Rifle. It even had a built in optical sight on the
carrying handle. We Yanks then bossed everybody into adopting the 7.62 and the EM-2 was abandoned because it was in the .280 round so they went with the FAL which could be much more easily changed to use the 7.62
Actually, the EM-2 would be a better choice for this game or the SA80 prototype that appeared in The Professionals. I am aware of the EM-2.
=== Bullpup guns ===

If they want bulpup gun in game why didnt they coice Em-2 ? Or Famas ? WHY THAT ANACHRONISTIC AUG, damn.
The FAMAS is even more anachronistic than the AUG. The FAMAS was adopted in the early eighties and it used a different type of 5.56 ammo than the NATO standard.

: Yeah. It get into service in eighties. But atleast there '''WERE''' first prototypes in 1968. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ummm...the prototypes of both the FAMAS and AUG were developed in the seventies. A better choice might be the Stoner 63 which had a history of use by the Navy SEALs and other clandestine units

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

The whole game looks suspiciously like MW2, just my opinion though. Hughjefender

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

I thought it was supposed to be a homage to 80's action movies. Or at least that's why I'm accepting it, because then I'll feel like I'm in an 80's action movie whenever I play this game. And what would an 80's action movie be without the SPAS-12 or the AUG? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

At least it's European, the Russians in MW2 carried Vectors and TAR-21s. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the AR-15 reload, it looked real. He pressed the mag release, he let the magazine fall to the ground, and he held it there until he put the new mag in. It's alot more realistic as opposed to the MW2 reloads, were you wave your gun around the screen while reloading either to look cool or to makeit obvious that you are, in fact, reloading your weapon. Most of the time though, people don't do that when they reload in real life, unless they're an idiot. The .357 reload was kinda lazy though, but I let it slide because he actually whips the cylinder back in instead of the light tilt that's all it takes to swing the cylinder back in in MW2 and most other video games. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More oticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:Is it me or is the picture in the magazine a reverse shot? Because I see the forward assist on this A1 as well as the ejection on the right side. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up
[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Any links to zombies?

== Has it occured to anyone that the AR-15 variant is probably custom made? ==

Treyarch has said that these guys could have guns custom built just for them, which I feel explains things much more adequately than just saying that they're prototypes of future (to them) guns. My theory is that he had a CAR-15 custom made with a flat-top reciever for tactical reasons. Maybe this caught on with the rest of the team, and whatever manufacturer they got to make these guns for them sold the idea later on. Of course this is just an excuse for the guns having the rails just to free it up for attacthments in Multiplayer, but at least there is some kind of excuse. Unfortunately this theory doesn't cover the anachronistic appearances of the SPAS-12 and the AUG, but hey, no game ever get's all of it's guns 100% correct. 

Edit: Actually it just might explain the AUG, because all it really is is a combination of ideas taken from the Enfield EM-2, 
Korobov TKB-022, and several other abandoned designs from before or shortly after World War 2. The only thing it doesn't explain is why it has the production-style built in telescopic sight, instead of the original prototypes open sights:
[[http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_pr1.gif]]

== For those of you who may be confused about the supposed MP5/UMP hybrid ==

This is what I'm talkin about: 

[[Image:CODBO-SMG.jpg]] 

As you can see, it appears that it has the reciever and magazine housing of an MP5 or MP5K, while the barrel housing (correct me if I'm incorrect in calling it that) looks like that of a somewhat shortened UMP. If you look closely, you will note that it has the MP5Ks finger guard (I'm guessing that's what that is) directly below the muzzle that looks like a cut down version of the full handguard found in this picture: 

[[Image:MP5Kprototype.JPG]] 

My point is I don't think it's a hybrid at all, merely an MP5K missing it's forward vertical grip, for some reason or another. And seeing as every other aspect of the gun is that of an MP5Ks, I think it's safe to say that's what it is, so I'm gonna change it to that on the front page. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== G11 ==

Anyone else as excited as I am for the inclusion of the G11? [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just another anachronistic gun. Thats all. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure as heck am. --[[User:AK-74Fan|AK-74Fanc]] 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh the gun itself isn't that big of a deal to me, but I definitely am excited to see something that to my knowledge hasn't been in an FPS before. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Well, it have appeared already in few other FPS games. For example [[Delta Force: Land Warrior]], [[Global Operations]], [[IGI 2: Covert Strike]] or Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Those games are not up to the modern standard, though. ;) [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:Really, you could say this is the G11s first appearance in a well known game, and will finally show it off to the masses. I love the weapon itself, and to see it finally make a big appearance like this makes me quite happy.[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== XM214 Microgun ==

Since it's going to cover the Vietnam era, and the way these types of games like to go over the top, do you think there's a chance that the XM214 Microgun is going to make an appearance? I know it was only a prototype, and was it was made in the 70's, but I thought I read somewhere that the SF guys tried it out only to find that it was not feasable having a gun fire at 4,000 rpm.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think putting a Minigun in the game would be kind of stupid. I mean sure they could make it heavy and awkward to carry, but that thing would simply decimate anyone in it's path, whether they're behind light cover, in a vehicle or just in the open. I'd love one, but methinks not. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== A more plausable fictional AR-15 ==

I can understand a frankengun, like some special forces guy back then would take several kinds of AR-15 designs and mash them together until he gets an awesome gun that works. And being special forces, they can get whatever they want to suit their mission, so it would make sense for whatever they take to not be standard issue or that it is known, but I don't like the flip up iron sights since I don't know when flip up irons came about or the flat top receiver. It's like they just took a Colt Model 933 and replaced the stock with an old style stock from the CAR-15. I mean, put a telescoptic stock on an M16A1 rifle, or A2 upper reliever on the Car-15 and swap out the pistol grip or something. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:That would make sense considering the special forces style of the game. Also, Sonny (from Deadliest warrior and such) was on as an advisor for Spetsnaz and tactics, so look for both some epic Spetsnaz moves and even a character of him in game! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Do we even officially know yet what model AR-15 it is, aside of course from the flattop reciever and flip-up sights? [[Special:Contributions/67.187.27.89|67.187.27.89]] 02:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much is a Colt Model 933 without a brass deflector or forward assist, which actual does not exist. I have not seen a flat top reciever without the forward assist and the brass deflector. I don't even think flip up irons were invented back then. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean if they threw in a CAR-15 tricked out like the ones seen in Black Hawk Down, I'd have no complaints [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

== New weapons! ==

Here's [[http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/File:GunWall.png]] a pic of a bunch of airsoft guns Treyarch has on a wall in their studio which pretty much confirms that they'll be in the game. 
From left to right, starting at the top: 
-M16A2 (?) 
-MAC-10 w/ supressor 
-AUG 
-Mini-Uzi 
-L85 
-Scorpion SA Vz 61 
-AKs-74u 
-Another Skorpion 
-SPAS-12 
-MP5 (?) 

Not sure exactly what the MP5 is doing as there already is the K variant prototype, and no idea what the HELL the M16A2 is doing there as there's already an M16A1 AND a CAR-15. What do you all think?
Sorry it's a bit blurry.

It could be a very blurry M16A1 or maybe because they somehow can bullshit their way into saying they got a prototype M16A2. And I prefer us to use the full size MP5 again. Looks like they got an L85 here. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

: That pic is here too :) Check out "extras" section in article :D

:The L85 got my gun-boner up, been wanting that since the MW2 L86 LSDisapointment. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-22T01:05:56Z

M14fanboy: /* A more plausable fictional AR-15 */

This game has a cold war look to it

==zombie mode==

will they have it? It is treyarch, but i havent heard anything solid yet.
:The article that I read (and summarized below) seemed to indicate that they had something other than zombies. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not copying spec ops.....

Maybe it's aliens.

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==='''M16 is in.'''===

I am not sure which version is that, but i added it as A1.

It have been confirmed in '''Call of Duty:Black ops INSIGHT''' trailer.

Oh crap, they mentioned Sonny Puzikas, I remember that name from the spetsnaz episode of Deadliest Warrior.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"
:What the hell do you have with those movie guns ? Why should they be in ?

It would be amazing to see Sa. Vz. 58 there. It was frequently used by vietcong fighters as USSR´s help.

''''''Some good proofs''' :'''

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=691&sid=c3ccbd4348543db02c420df186cb428c ('' '''NVA training''''' )

http://www.quansuvn.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41.0;attach=4972;image

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=1169 ('' '''SSG Patrick Tadina with his Vz. 58''''' )

http://www.psywarrior.com/rewardforguns.gif ( '''''Vietcong fighters firearms info poster, left side, third from down''''' )

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1164/biethaisamopal9wq.jpg ( '''''Captured Vz. 58 on left''''' )

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/joshuadowdle/Dad.jpg ( '''''In hands of SSG Patrick Tadina''''' )

''SSG Patrick Tadina - Legendary, five-tour Vietnam ranger. He is in rangers´s hall of fame.''

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Well how much differently could essentially just a shortened MP5 with a foregrip work from the regular MP5?

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

It's just like the Aperature sight in W@W, but no where near as bad. I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of it, sure it's not exactly authentic, but it's far from game ruining like what a lot of people here are saying.

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

......Why the hell wouldn't they take it seriously? You do know that the British had actually adopted a bullpup design in 1951 for a very short time. Search Em-2 Rifle. It even had a built in optical sight on the
carrying handle. We Yanks then bossed everybody into adopting the 7.62 and the EM-2 was abandoned because it was in the .280 round so they went with the FAL which could be much more easily changed to use the 7.62
Actually, the EM-2 would be a better choice for this game or the SA80 prototype that appeared in The Professionals. I am aware of the EM-2.
=== Bullpup guns ===

If they want bulpup gun in game why didnt they coice Em-2 ? Or Famas ? WHY THAT ANACHRONISTIC AUG, damn.
The FAMAS is even more anachronistic than the AUG. The FAMAS was adopted in the early eighties and it used a different type of 5.56 ammo than the NATO standard.

: Yeah. It get into service in eighties. But atleast there '''WERE''' first prototypes in 1968. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

I thought it was supposed to be a homage to 80's action movies. Or at least that's why I'm accepting it, because then I'll feel like I'm in an 80's action movie whenever I play this game. And what would an 80's action movie be without the SPAS-12 or the AUG? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

At least it's European, the Russians in MW2 carried Vectors and TAR-21s. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the AR-15 reload, it looked real. He pressed the mag release, he let the magazine fall to the ground, and he held it there until he put the new mag in. It's alot more realistic as opposed to the MW2 reloads, were you wave your gun around the screen while reloading either to look cool or to makeit obvious that you are, in fact, reloading your weapon. Most of the time though, people don't do that when they reload in real life, unless they're an idiot. The .357 reload was kinda lazy though, but I let it slide because he actually whips the cylinder back in instead of the light tilt that's all it takes to swing the cylinder back in in MW2 and most other video games. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More oticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:Is it me or is the picture in the magazine a reverse shot? Because I see the forward assist on this A1 as well as the ejection on the right side. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up
[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Any links to zombies?

== Has it occured to anyone that the AR-15 variant is probably custom made? ==

Treyarch has said that these guys could have guns custom built just for them, which I feel explains things much more adequately than just saying that they're prototypes of future (to them) guns. My theory is that he had a CAR-15 custom made with a flat-top reciever for tactical reasons. Maybe this caught on with the rest of the team, and whatever manufacturer they got to make these guns for them sold the idea later on. Of course this is just an excuse for the guns having the rails just to free it up for attacthments in Multiplayer, but at least there is some kind of excuse. Unfortunately this theory doesn't cover the anachronistic appearances of the SPAS-12 and the AUG, but hey, no game ever get's all of it's guns 100% correct. 

Edit: Actually it just might explain the AUG, because all it really is is a combination of ideas taken from the Enfield EM-2, 
Korobov TKB-022, and several other abandoned designs from before or shortly after World War 2. The only thing it doesn't explain is why it has the production-style built in telescopic sight, instead of the original prototypes open sights:
[[http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_pr1.gif]]

== For those of you who may be confused about the supposed MP5/UMP hybrid ==

This is what I'm talkin about: 

[[Image:CODBO-SMG.jpg]] 

As you can see, it appears that it has the reciever and magazine housing of an MP5 or MP5K, while the barrel housing (correct me if I'm incorrect in calling it that) looks like that of a somewhat shortened UMP. If you look closely, you will note that it has the MP5Ks finger guard (I'm guessing that's what that is) directly below the muzzle that looks like a cut down version of the full handguard found in this picture: 

[[Image:MP5Kprototype.JPG]] 

My point is I don't think it's a hybrid at all, merely an MP5K missing it's forward vertical grip, for some reason or another. And seeing as every other aspect of the gun is that of an MP5Ks, I think it's safe to say that's what it is, so I'm gonna change it to that on the front page. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== G11 ==

Anyone else as excited as I am for the inclusion of the G11? [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just another anachronistic gun. Thats all. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure as heck am. --[[User:AK-74Fan|AK-74Fanc]] 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh the gun itself isn't that big of a deal to me, but I definitely am excited to see something that to my knowledge hasn't been in an FPS before. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Well, it have appeared already in few other FPS games. For example [[Delta Force: Land Warrior]], [[Global Operations]], [[IGI 2: Covert Strike]] or Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Those games are not up to the modern standard, though. ;) [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:Really, you could say this is the G11s first appearance in a well known game, and will finally show it off to the masses. I love the weapon itself, and to see it finally make a big appearance like this makes me quite happy.[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== XM214 Microgun ==

Since it's going to cover the Vietnam era, and the way these types of games like to go over the top, do you think there's a chance that the XM214 Microgun is going to make an appearance? I know it was only a prototype, and was it was made in the 70's, but I thought I read somewhere that the SF guys tried it out only to find that it was not feasable having a gun fire at 4,000 rpm.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think putting a Minigun in the game would be kind of stupid. I mean sure they could make it heavy and awkward to carry, but that thing would simply decimate anyone in it's path, whether they're behind light cover, in a vehicle or just in the open. I'd love one, but methinks not. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== A more plausable fictional AR-15 ==

I can understand a frankengun, like some special forces guy back then would take several kinds of AR-15 designs and mash them together until he gets an awesome gun that works. And being special forces, they can get whatever they want to suit their mission, so it would make sense for whatever they take to not be standard issue or that it is known, but I don't like the flip up iron sights since I don't know when flip up irons came about or the flat top receiver. It's like they just took a Colt Model 933 and replaced the stock with an old style stock from the CAR-15. I mean, put a telescoptic stock on an M16A1 rifle, or A2 upper reliever on the Car-15 and swap out the pistol grip or something. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:That would make sense considering the special forces style of the game. Also, Sonny (from Deadliest warrior and such) was on as an advisor for Spetsnaz and tactics, so look for both some epic Spetsnaz moves and even a character of him in game! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-21T19:18:57Z

M14fanboy: /* G11 */

This game has a cold war look to it

==zombie mode==

will they have it? It is treyarch, but i havent heard anything solid yet.
:The article that I read (and summarized below) seemed to indicate that they had something other than zombies. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not copying spec ops.....

Maybe it's aliens.

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==='''M16 is in.'''===

I am not sure which version is that, but i added it as A1.

It have been confirmed in '''Call of Duty:Black ops INSIGHT''' trailer.

Oh crap, they mentioned Sonny Puzikas, I remember that name from the spetsnaz episode of Deadliest Warrior.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"
:What the hell do you have with those movie guns ? Why should they be in ?

It would be amazing to see Sa. Vz. 58 there. It was frequently used by vietcong fighters as USSR´s help.

''''''Some good proofs''' :'''

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=691&sid=c3ccbd4348543db02c420df186cb428c ('' '''NVA training''''' )

http://www.quansuvn.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41.0;attach=4972;image

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=1169 ('' '''SSG Patrick Tadina with his Vz. 58''''' )

http://www.psywarrior.com/rewardforguns.gif ( '''''Vietcong fighters firearms info poster, left side, third from down''''' )

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1164/biethaisamopal9wq.jpg ( '''''Captured Vz. 58 on left''''' )

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/joshuadowdle/Dad.jpg ( '''''In hands of SSG Patrick Tadina''''' )

''SSG Patrick Tadina - Legendary, five-tour Vietnam ranger. He is in rangers´s hall of fame.''

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Well how much differently could essentially just a shortened MP5 with a foregrip work from the regular MP5?

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

It's just like the Aperature sight in W@W, but no where near as bad. I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of it, sure it's not exactly authentic, but it's far from game ruining like what a lot of people here are saying.

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

......Why the hell wouldn't they take it seriously? You do know that the British had actually adopted a bullpup design in 1951 for a very short time. Search Em-2 Rifle. It even had a built in optical sight on the
carrying handle. We Yanks then bossed everybody into adopting the 7.62 and the EM-2 was abandoned because it was in the .280 round so they went with the FAL which could be much more easily changed to use the 7.62
Actually, the EM-2 would be a better choice for this game or the SA80 prototype that appeared in The Professionals. I am aware of the EM-2.
=== Bullpup guns ===

If they want bulpup gun in game why didnt they coice Em-2 ? Or Famas ? WHY THAT ANACHRONISTIC AUG, damn.
The FAMAS is even more anachronistic than the AUG. The FAMAS was adopted in the early eighties and it used a different type of 5.56 ammo than the NATO standard.

: Yeah. It get into service in eighties. But atleast there '''WERE''' first prototypes in 1968. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

I thought it was supposed to be a homage to 80's action movies. Or at least that's why I'm accepting it, because then I'll feel like I'm in an 80's action movie whenever I play this game. And what would an 80's action movie be without the SPAS-12 or the AUG? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

At least it's European, the Russians in MW2 carried Vectors and TAR-21s. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the AR-15 reload, it looked real. He pressed the mag release, he let the magazine fall to the ground, and he held it there until he put the new mag in. It's alot more realistic as opposed to the MW2 reloads, were you wave your gun around the screen while reloading either to look cool or to makeit obvious that you are, in fact, reloading your weapon. Most of the time though, people don't do that when they reload in real life, unless they're an idiot. The .357 reload was kinda lazy though, but I let it slide because he actually whips the cylinder back in instead of the light tilt that's all it takes to swing the cylinder back in in MW2 and most other video games. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More oticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:Is it me or is the picture in the magazine a reverse shot? Because I see the forward assist on this A1 as well as the ejection on the right side. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up
[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Any links to zombies?

== Has it occured to anyone that the AR-15 variant is probably custom made? ==

Treyarch has said that these guys could have guns custom built just for them, which I feel explains things much more adequately than just saying that they're prototypes of future (to them) guns. My theory is that he had a CAR-15 custom made with a flat-top reciever for tactical reasons. Maybe this caught on with the rest of the team, and whatever manufacturer they got to make these guns for them sold the idea later on. Of course this is just an excuse for the guns having the rails just to free it up for attacthments in Multiplayer, but at least there is some kind of excuse. Unfortunately this theory doesn't cover the anachronistic appearances of the SPAS-12 and the AUG, but hey, no game ever get's all of it's guns 100% correct. 

Edit: Actually it just might explain the AUG, because all it really is is a combination of ideas taken from the Enfield EM-2, 
Korobov TKB-022, and several other abandoned designs from before or shortly after World War 2. The only thing it doesn't explain is why it has the production-style built in telescopic sight, instead of the original prototypes open sights:
[[http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_pr1.gif]]

== For those of you who may be confused about the supposed MP5/UMP hybrid ==

This is what I'm talkin about: 

[[Image:CODBO-SMG.jpg]] 

As you can see, it appears that it has the reciever and magazine housing of an MP5 or MP5K, while the barrel housing (correct me if I'm incorrect in calling it that) looks like that of a somewhat shortened UMP. If you look closely, you will note that it has the MP5Ks finger guard (I'm guessing that's what that is) directly below the muzzle that looks like a cut down version of the full handguard found in this picture: 

[[Image:MP5Kprototype.JPG]] 

My point is I don't think it's a hybrid at all, merely an MP5K missing it's forward vertical grip, for some reason or another. And seeing as every other aspect of the gun is that of an MP5Ks, I think it's safe to say that's what it is, so I'm gonna change it to that on the front page. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== G11 ==

Anyone else as excited as I am for the inclusion of the G11? [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just another anachronistic gun. Thats all. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure as heck am. --[[User:AK-74Fan|AK-74Fanc]] 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh the gun itself isn't that big of a deal to me, but I definitely am excited to see something that to my knowledge hasn't been in an FPS before. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Well, it have appeared already in few other FPS games. For example [[Delta Force: Land Warrior]], [[Global Operations]], [[IGI 2: Covert Strike]] or Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Those games are not up to the modern standard, though. ;) [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:Really, you could say this is the G11s first appearance in a well known game, and will finally show it off to the masses. I love the weapon itself, and to see it finally make a big appearance like this makes me quite happy.[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== XM214 Microgun ==

Since it's going to cover the Vietnam era, and the way these types of games like to go over the top, do you think there's a chance that the XM214 Microgun is going to make an appearance? I know it was only a prototype, and was it was made in the 70's, but I thought I read somewhere that the SF guys tried it out only to find that it was not feasable having a gun fire at 4,000 rpm.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think putting a Minigun in the game would be kind of stupid. I mean sure they could make it heavy and awkward to carry, but that thing would simply decimate anyone in it's path, whether they're behind light cover, in a vehicle or just in the open. I'd love one, but methinks not. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-21T19:17:52Z

M14fanboy: /* XM214 Microgun */

This game has a cold war look to it

==zombie mode==

will they have it? It is treyarch, but i havent heard anything solid yet.
:The article that I read (and summarized below) seemed to indicate that they had something other than zombies. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not copying spec ops.....

Maybe it's aliens.

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==='''M16 is in.'''===

I am not sure which version is that, but i added it as A1.

It have been confirmed in '''Call of Duty:Black ops INSIGHT''' trailer.

Oh crap, they mentioned Sonny Puzikas, I remember that name from the spetsnaz episode of Deadliest Warrior.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"
:What the hell do you have with those movie guns ? Why should they be in ?

It would be amazing to see Sa. Vz. 58 there. It was frequently used by vietcong fighters as USSR´s help.

''''''Some good proofs''' :'''

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=691&sid=c3ccbd4348543db02c420df186cb428c ('' '''NVA training''''' )

http://www.quansuvn.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41.0;attach=4972;image

http://nam64-75.hill.cz/download/file.php?id=1169 ('' '''SSG Patrick Tadina with his Vz. 58''''' )

http://www.psywarrior.com/rewardforguns.gif ( '''''Vietcong fighters firearms info poster, left side, third from down''''' )

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1164/biethaisamopal9wq.jpg ( '''''Captured Vz. 58 on left''''' )

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/joshuadowdle/Dad.jpg ( '''''In hands of SSG Patrick Tadina''''' )

''SSG Patrick Tadina - Legendary, five-tour Vietnam ranger. He is in rangers´s hall of fame.''

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Well how much differently could essentially just a shortened MP5 with a foregrip work from the regular MP5?

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

It's just like the Aperature sight in W@W, but no where near as bad. I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of it, sure it's not exactly authentic, but it's far from game ruining like what a lot of people here are saying.

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

......Why the hell wouldn't they take it seriously? You do know that the British had actually adopted a bullpup design in 1951 for a very short time. Search Em-2 Rifle. It even had a built in optical sight on the
carrying handle. We Yanks then bossed everybody into adopting the 7.62 and the EM-2 was abandoned because it was in the .280 round so they went with the FAL which could be much more easily changed to use the 7.62
Actually, the EM-2 would be a better choice for this game or the SA80 prototype that appeared in The Professionals. I am aware of the EM-2.
=== Bullpup guns ===

If they want bulpup gun in game why didnt they coice Em-2 ? Or Famas ? WHY THAT ANACHRONISTIC AUG, damn.
The FAMAS is even more anachronistic than the AUG. The FAMAS was adopted in the early eighties and it used a different type of 5.56 ammo than the NATO standard.

: Yeah. It get into service in eighties. But atleast there '''WERE''' first prototypes in 1968. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

I thought it was supposed to be a homage to 80's action movies. Or at least that's why I'm accepting it, because then I'll feel like I'm in an 80's action movie whenever I play this game. And what would an 80's action movie be without the SPAS-12 or the AUG? [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

At least it's European, the Russians in MW2 carried Vectors and TAR-21s. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked the AR-15 reload, it looked real. He pressed the mag release, he let the magazine fall to the ground, and he held it there until he put the new mag in. It's alot more realistic as opposed to the MW2 reloads, were you wave your gun around the screen while reloading either to look cool or to makeit obvious that you are, in fact, reloading your weapon. Most of the time though, people don't do that when they reload in real life, unless they're an idiot. The .357 reload was kinda lazy though, but I let it slide because he actually whips the cylinder back in instead of the light tilt that's all it takes to swing the cylinder back in in MW2 and most other video games. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More oticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:Is it me or is the picture in the magazine a reverse shot? Because I see the forward assist on this A1 as well as the ejection on the right side. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up
[[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Any links to zombies?

== Has it occured to anyone that the AR-15 variant is probably custom made? ==

Treyarch has said that these guys could have guns custom built just for them, which I feel explains things much more adequately than just saying that they're prototypes of future (to them) guns. My theory is that he had a CAR-15 custom made with a flat-top reciever for tactical reasons. Maybe this caught on with the rest of the team, and whatever manufacturer they got to make these guns for them sold the idea later on. Of course this is just an excuse for the guns having the rails just to free it up for attacthments in Multiplayer, but at least there is some kind of excuse. Unfortunately this theory doesn't cover the anachronistic appearances of the SPAS-12 and the AUG, but hey, no game ever get's all of it's guns 100% correct. 

Edit: Actually it just might explain the AUG, because all it really is is a combination of ideas taken from the Enfield EM-2, 
Korobov TKB-022, and several other abandoned designs from before or shortly after World War 2. The only thing it doesn't explain is why it has the production-style built in telescopic sight, instead of the original prototypes open sights:
[[http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_pr1.gif]]

== For those of you who may be confused about the supposed MP5/UMP hybrid ==

This is what I'm talkin about: 

[[Image:CODBO-SMG.jpg]] 

As you can see, it appears that it has the reciever and magazine housing of an MP5 or MP5K, while the barrel housing (correct me if I'm incorrect in calling it that) looks like that of a somewhat shortened UMP. If you look closely, you will note that it has the MP5Ks finger guard (I'm guessing that's what that is) directly below the muzzle that looks like a cut down version of the full handguard found in this picture: 

[[Image:MP5Kprototype.JPG]] 

My point is I don't think it's a hybrid at all, merely an MP5K missing it's forward vertical grip, for some reason or another. And seeing as every other aspect of the gun is that of an MP5Ks, I think it's safe to say that's what it is, so I'm gonna change it to that on the front page. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== G11 ==

Anyone else as excited as I am for the inclusion of the G11? [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Just another anachronistic gun. Thats all. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sure as heck am. --[[User:AK-74Fan|AK-74Fanc]] 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh the gun itself isn't that big of a deal to me, but I definitely am excited to see something that to my knowledge hasn't been in an FPS before. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Well, it have appeared already in few other FPS games. For example [[Delta Force: Land Warrior]], [[Global Operations]], [[IGI 2: Covert Strike]] or Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Those games are not up to the modern standard, though. ;) [[User:Dannysaysnoo|Dannysaysnoo]] 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

== XM214 Microgun ==

Since it's going to cover the Vietnam era, and the way these types of games like to go over the top, do you think there's a chance that the XM214 Microgun is going to make an appearance? I know it was only a prototype, and was it was made in the 70's, but I thought I read somewhere that the SF guys tried it out only to find that it was not feasable having a gun fire at 4,000 rpm.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 03:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think putting a Minigun in the game would be kind of stupid. I mean sure they could make it heavy and awkward to carry, but that thing would simply decimate anyone in it's path, whether they're behind light cover, in a vehicle or just in the open. I'd love one, but methinks not. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Medal of Honor (2010)

2010-07-17T06:18:00Z

M14fanboy: /* Hi-Def MP videos */

==beta release date?==

When will 360 beta be out? I keep hearing within a week but have seen no announcements by the company.
:http://twitter.com/medalofhonor
:http://twitter.com/pottan

Both links failed, and im getting pissed waiting, gives you high hopes for the games multiplayer when a short beta is this delayed......

I heard somewhere they're going to run it after they fix the bugs from the PS3/PC Betas, after they're done, because it will allow them to find new problems and because it saves money. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

==weapon balance==

i just saw the 12 round beretta mentioned i think they did that for balance reasons. Another game too focused on fairness. God forbid you unlock a gun later on that just owns.

-k9870

Yeah its kind of annoying when its that balanced, at least you could pretend its the .40, but I wouldn't even know what to do with the Grach, its named the Tariq (which is something else) and has 12 rounds too, when its supposed to have 17. Wait, couldn't they both just have been 16 to be in between? If I WAS going to make an overly balanced system like this, I'd try to make it close, why take them both down to 12? [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
::Pretend it's the .40 too

Haha too bad there isn't one... WAIT! If you really want to stretch it you could pretend its the compact MP-448, 12 rounds of 9x18mm lol :D [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 03:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate when the do something like "the m4 has 20 power and 30 fire rate, the AK has 30 power and 20 fire rate, so there balanced. Then they go weapon x is more accurate than weapon y since its weaker and needs an advantage. I wish when you leveled up you had guns with good advantages that just own.

-k9870

I want a game that keeps the round in the chamber, keeps track of your extra mags (not the one big number bullshit), all the functions to be right, none of the guns to be set in a firing mode they're not in, the ability to switch modes to whatever that weapon has, the correct attachments (no AKs with ACOGs, or M14s and G3s with M203s), the correct animations for reloads, correct fire rates, correct mag capacities, correct zooms on scopes and no zoom on reflex sights/irons sights, its not really too much to ask I don't think. The only thing that would be arguable would be damage stuff does, but for the MOST part if you used the calibre measurement as the damage it would work (i.e. 5.56mm does about 22 damage, 7.62mm does 30, .50 does 50) it's not perfect but I at least want the guns with the same calibres to do the same damage... Rant done. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:There is a game for you, it's called ArmA. Mainstream arcadey FPS won't have all these features. But I agree at least counting bullet up the pipe would be nice touch. That always bugged me too. I have no idea why CoD games still doesn't have this. Anyway, ACOG (or any other weaver optic) on AK is not a problem via special mount. 203 on G3 and M14 is possible too.

Oh believe me, I wouldn't need ALL that, I still play the mainstream FPSs, it would just be nice, I just kept going with the list ;) And I do know you can technically put an ACOG on an AK or a 203 on the M14 or G3, but it would be nice to see the things that are supposed to be there... there, like the HK79. The attachments thing certainly wouldn't be as important to me as the round in the chamber, and I don't think guns of the same calibre having the same damage would be too much, its not that would take any extra effort... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:Same caliber doesn't always do same damage when shot from different barrels. M16 and M4 is a good example. In case with M16 bullet tumble and fragment thus making more damage, but when the same ammo shot from M4 it does not.

I knew that but didn't want to make my posts too long ;)That's fair, I meant more the stuff that doesn't make sense, like a 12 gauge that does more damage than another 12 gauge because it's pump action vs semi-auto, or like in Modern Warfare 2, which is the game I'm mostly complaning about, the F2000 has a 15.7" barrel and does 30 damage, while the TAR-21 has an 18.1" does 40, I know the idea of damage as a numerical system like this isn't realistic in a lot of ways, but it's the best anyone has been able to come up with so far, and I wouldn't think 2.4 inches of barrel would make that much of a difference. Put it this way, out of the 9 assault rifles in that game there are only 3 different damages, the 30, 40, and 55, keep in mind that the calibres here are 5.56, 7.62, and 7.62 NATO: the M4, ACR, and F2000 do 30, the FAMAS, SCAR, TAR-21, M16A4, and AK-47 do the same (lol what?) at 40, and the FAL does a whopping 55 (because its semi). But the single worst is the UMP and Super V, both .45s with a comparible barrel length, the UMP does 40 (again) and the the Super V does... 25. I know there should be differences but this makes NO SENSE. Sorry, I know this is the Medal Of Honor page, but everyone here seems smarter... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 07:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not a simulator. They needed to differentiate gun's performance. Besides, most people playing it doesn't know shit which caliber it shoots. So probably it's better to just get over it. Try playing hardcore mode and weapon damage won't bother you so much.

I know :) it doesn't really matter too much, it would just be nice, but I'm not expecting it though lol [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

seriously, no 1911 very disapointing. it might be outdated but Special Forces still use them. [[User:Dirtdiver6421|Dirtdiver6421]] 00:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Who said there won't be a 1911 in the final game? This isn't the final game. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
i dont know. i just figured since its not on the page already they wouldnt have it. but i hope they do. its a great gun and is used by Spec Ops. [[User:Dirtdiver6421|Dirtdiver6421]] 00:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
i think that all the comparisons come from MW2 because it has an overwhelming amount of flaws. for example- what has been previously stated. and does anyone else find it peculiar that all assault rifles lose the front sight when optics are attached? knowone would do that its stupid. what if there was a long battle and you ran out of battery on a dime, nope your dead now. and i kind of agree with the lack of a back sight because it takes away the point of the reflex being quick if you have to line 3 things to a target instead of the 1-2 or a normal rifle.

==First Part==

This game looks very promising in terms of realism and graphics compared to the other games. I'm excited to see that the game developers are working with REAL special forces operators. The game comes out in Fall 2010. CAN'T FREAKIN WAIT!!!!!!- ArmoredMason619

I've always had a soft spot with this series. I really hope they knock it out of the park with this one.

I'm guessing the guy on the front cover is a Green Beret?-- [[User:John Ryder|John Ryder]]

:For some reason I though the guy on the front page was a PMC --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 05:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Na he is a Green Beret. That's the way they look when they are in a combat zone. They have to grow out a beard and dress like the civilians/insurgents in that particular area.-ArmoredMason619

A World War II shooter series is switching to a modern setting? It'll never work.
:Your kidding right...and sign your posts --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The graphics appear to be on par with ''[[America's Army 3]]'', though hopefully it'll have less problems and a better weapon selection. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 23:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The trailer had what looked like an [[FN Minimi#M249-E1 / M249-E2 / M249 Paratrooper SAW|M249 SAW]] variant fitted with an EOTech red dot sight, but I only saw it for a second looking down the sights in first-person mode so couldn't determine wether it was a standard SAW or specialized version like the Paratrooper or [[FN Minimi#FN Minimi SPW|SPW]]. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 23:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a screen of the M4A1 and the Minimi/SAw possibilty. --[[User:TheCrazyGunNut|TheCrazyGunNut]]

Ah, cheap EA.. This is so obvious that they are doing this because of MW success. Won't buy just because of this fact.

Or because WWII has been overdone and they wanted to do something else. --[[User:Crazycrankle|Crazycrankle]] 02:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

20th century saw so many wars. They could pick any one. The most suitable would be Vietnam war. I can't recall many good games about this conflict. It could be about SF also.

How about Vietcong? http://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=Vietcong In my personal oppinion the best PC game from Vietnam conflict up to date. I know that the Vietcong wasn't perfect but other games usually wasted their potential (e.g. Conflict Vietnam, Men of Valor) ended as a low quality budget (first Shellshock 67 and many others) or as some crazy VC/NVA-zombie kill fest (recent Shellshock 2).

I agree that there were many other "interesting" conflicts or suitable theathers for FPS games but "supply is influenced by demand". The "anti-terrorist" theme is actual and developers don't want to risk introducing a game that "nobody would want to play". Remember it's all about the money. Actually it's quite strange that if I look backwards I can't recall any good or partially realistic FPS from Afganistan or Iraq theatre - Modern Warefare, appart from other parts of the story, was set partialy in the Middle East but in some fictisious country (and that *** spoliler *** nuking of the whole Marine division *** spoiler *** was complete bullshit) and Modern Warefare 2 was about hunting down some crazy Russian ultranationalists (and *** spoiler *** one rouge American general *** spoiler *** that was bullshit as well). No offence to Call of Duty but I personally hope that Medal of Honor would not turn into such killfest of stupid AI NPC duchebags thrown in absolutely ridiculous waves into a single coridor where you have to kill more than 70 opponents on less than 100 square feet ...

:::Wow, so doing something original is bullshit? I mean, come on; I'd rather shoot 70 guys in a single cooridor than simply go from cave to cave, shooting the occasional militant, or riding about in my vehicle until I hit a bomb and get ambushed. Generic examples I know, but put simply, fighting a military-trained, fully-equipped soldier is a lot more exciting than some fanatical militant using 30-year-old weapons. Heck, even America's Army created a fictional enemy for the US Army to fight.

Judging by what I'm seeing in the trailer this is going to be far from any CoD style of modern warfare. This shit looks seriously hardcore in terms of trying to replicate some actual Iraq/Afghanistan gameplay. I guess only time will tell. Hopefully by then they fix the damn gas block thing. Fuck that pisses me off. These guys are working with tier 1 operators but they don't want to model the damn gun correctly. Anybody with even slight knowledge of an AR-15 platform would notice this error. It's a big frickin error.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

:::"replicate actual Iraq/Afghanistan gameplay"? So coalition forces playing in a sandbox there? And duh, there is a gas-block, it's just too low-profile and you cannot see it.

::::Even if the gas block isn't there, does it really matter? The average gamer probably doesn't know, or care, what a gas block is, let alone whether it's actually there or not; and the Medal of Honor series goes for what looks cool (such as the Flak Tower in Airborne), not what's realistic.

Don't change the intent of my words. Let me rephrase :::"replicate some actual Iraq/Afghanistan fighting into gameplay." There happy? As well the use of a low profile gas block seems like an excuse. What are the chances that every M4 has a low profile gas block when there are attached optics?[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]
:::Why not? It's a game about hi-speed low-drag tear1 omfgd3ltasealz special forces operators.
::::That's ''Tier'' 1. And even a low-profile gas block would still be visible on the barrel where the standard FSP would be due to the length of the gas tube. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 01:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

North American release date is October 12, 2010. Europe is October 15.-- [[User:John Ryder|John Ryder]]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFpgNJZ8Fhc&playnext_from=TL&videos=vd-xeQ7FyHw
^ At 0:56, 1:04, 1:16 you can see a stock, body, and barrel of a M14 EBR.
At O:43 you can see what I believe to be some kind of M240.*EDIT: Mk 46 Mod 0*
All along the trailer are M4s with optics and different accessories. -DeltaOp
:Was the Mark 14 EBR even fielded yet in 2002? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 01:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

- Nope. EBR was designed around that date - 2001/2002 but first units (mostly from Navy Seals) were issued this rifle later on in 2004. So it's probably another game inaccuracy.

Who said it was set in 2002? And the gas block isn't removed for optics like in Call Of Duty, it's removed when the M203's flip up sight is on top, I'm thinking it's not to block that, not that I think it would block it, but that's when it's not there, not because of optics. EDIT: Wow my bad, it is set then, and I was thinking the M203 was an attachment, but its fixed on like in BFBC2, wow, I feel dumb lol. EDIT #2: I figured it out, the M16 removes the front sight for optics, but the M4 doesn't. Odd. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

== Green Beret on cover ==
It's ''Cowboy''! [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2009/12/03/news-bearded-guy-on-medal-of-honor-cover-is-real.aspx] [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 01:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:Lmao. Oh i didnt think of that one. -[[User:The_Winchester|Winn]]

Anyone think its kinda odd that the Rangers seem to be doing alot of the work. along with the Green Beret. Wouldnt Delta Force/Navy SEALs be doing most of the stuff?

1st SFOD-D and Navy SEALs are, let's say, "equal" to Special Forces concerning their roles within US SOCOM. They are highly trained operators used for specific and "delicate" stuff. Rangers are more like muscless used for more "dirty" tasks. In reality, you would rather send a Special Forces A-Team to do cool things like - to recon the enemy airfield, to pin point potential high-value targets, to set observation post for calling CAS missions or to set sniping posts with 18B class operators with sniper rifles; while few C-130s packed with Ranger chalks would wait to "go-order" so they can jump in, do all the hard work and blow the enemy to pieces. Special Forces (Delta/SEALs etc.) are too valuable for such things. Even though, they are capable of kicking some serious ass, it is not practical to "mass" several A- or SEAL teams for a task, which bunch of Ranger squads could do better.[Ragnar]

okay thats true, but i just dont see why there wouldnt be SOME Operators or SEALs, think about this. Rangers are like the backbone of USSOCOM, Green Berets, are trained in Reconaissance, but if u want to kick some serious Taliban ass, u send in Operators or SEALs, because they excel at kickin' the door down, and opening up some whoop-ass. [[User:Dirtdiver 6421|Dirtdiver 6421]] 00:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:Who is the "Operators"?
::Delta "Operators". [[User:Pz.Abt.100|Pz.Abt.100]] 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

but really, i no Delta is more of a mission specific unit, but seriously what is America's best military asset? 1stSFOD-D. why? because they have close to 500 Operators, the best in the world. and officially they dont exist. political bull shit in the way, no problemo. they dont exist. its denieble if you send them in.[[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

== Guns revealed in multi-player demo at E3 ==
(These are just what I could spot while watching it on TV)
*Beretta 92FS/M9 (not a 92SB like in CoD, had the squared-off trigger guard)
*Pump-action shotgun I couldn't identify (they only showed it from the back)
*Bolt-action sniper rifle, presumably a Remington M24 (only saw it from the back and right side as the player was working the bolt)
*Not actually a new gun, but the M4A1 also had a low-profile front BUIS mounted on the RIS is some scenes
[[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you check the kill feed immediately after the kill with the sniper rifle, the identifies the unknown rifle as a Sako M57. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 16:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I found some footage: http://videos.pcgames.de/v/MuuqC3iXMpw/Medal-of-Honor/Multiplayer-Gameplay-E3-2010/ (the shotgun is a TOZ-194)

More confirmed weapons. I recommend you keep your eye to the left of the screen, below the radar, to see some weapons we have missed while watching the video.

RPK-Can be seen as a weapon that killed the player on the screen (look left of gameplay)

RPG 7-In-game footage

AK-47-Can be seen as a weapon that killed the player on the screen (look left of gameplay)

AT-4 (I think by the ingame footage)

M9- From ingame footage

SVD Can be seen as a weapon that killed the player on the screen (look left of gameplay)

M249 Can be seen as a weapon that killed the player on the screen (look left of gameplay)

TT-30 Seen ingame

MP7A1 This one was very hard to see (Can be seen as a weapon that killed the player on the screen (look left of gameplay)

M-21 Can be seen as a weapon that killed the player on the screen (look left of gameplay)

870MCS Can be seen as a weapon that killed the player on the screen (look left of gameplay)

M60 Can be seen as a weapon that killed the player on the screen (look left of gameplay)

Knife: I need a confirmation but in the "Leave a Message" trailer one of the Rangers seems to be equipped with a Coyote Brown Gerber LMF II knife.

== List ==
I'm gonna put all the ones I've seen down, so we've got one big list (this is all from the 11 minute long multiplayer video, both seen on screen and on the killfeed) If the names are given (killfeed ones) I'm writing them exactly as they are named in game. For the ones that aren't named I'll name them what they are.

M16

M203

AK-47

GP-30

M249

PKM

M4

AKS-74u

870MCS

TOZ-194

AT4

RPG-7

M21

SVD (NOTE: Has a straight .308 magazine)

M24

SV-98

M9

MP-443 (NOTE: Appears as the Tariq, which I thought that was an Iraqi-made Beretta clone...)

(From here down is not in the Beta)

RPK

MP7A1

M240

M60

M14 EBR (Seen in other videos. It is NOT the same as the M21 like it is in certain other games, the M21 has a normal M21 type body and stock, BOTH are in this.) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 04:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

==Spliting into sections ==
Wont it make sence to make two sections ? One with MP´s guns and one with SP´s guns. I think it will - because they dont use same engine, so guns can be different.

Why would the single player and multiplayer use different engines? That makes no sense. It would make the modelers have to model everything twice, and take up twice as much space on disc. No. We're not going to do that.-protoAuthor 19:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

: It '''USES''' different engines. MP is running on frostbite, and SP is running on UT3 one.

Not sure if i'm doing this right, but yes it uses different engines, and the modelers do not have to model everything twice, they can easily import it from a common format to both engine's formats, PSK Mesh (or something) for UT3, and a new version of bundledmesh contained in RES files for frostbite. You don't have to model it twice, you just export within both engines.

:It still makes no sense to split up the page. But thank you for enlightening me to something that still makes no sense to me. Why would they do that?-protoAuthor 16:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The only reason i could possibly see would be to make a comparable multiplayer experience for BFBC2 players, And they might have already started building singleplayer on the unreal engine, which most if not all of the previous MoH games used. In my opinion, it shouldn't be split either, means some firearms would be listed twice. btw this isn't the original poster, this is the guy from the post before proto's last.

: Ok than. It doesnt have to be split, but there should be atlest writed to each screenshot " This is from Multiplayer/ Singleplayer". And just one little '''BTW''': They modelled it twice. As you can see, M4 or MK46 '''''HAVE''''' different models.

That's because the M4 and Mk. 46 are different guns, silly.-protoAuthor 04:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Heh. I mean that M4 looks different in SP and MP. Same with Mk.46

They do look different but I think its just because one sets from that first trailer a while ago, game's graphics always get better as develpment keeps going, but you might be right to, I was just throwing that out there. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

== LMG Special Weapons ==

In the sniper class you get C4, in the special ops class you get a rocket, and with an assault rifle in the rifleman class you get a launcher... so what do you get if you equip an LMG? [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 09:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

more ammo?

:Absolutely nothing. You have 2 spare 150 round mags (in the beta, with the PK).
::You have self-destruct vest.

Is that a joke or can you actually be a suicide bomber, cause what would the American gunners get? [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:C4

It is then? Okay cool, I figured but I wasn't sure, I can't check because the 360 beta was delayed :( [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
== Best of 3 shooters? ==

I have to say, out of the 3 FPS games that will be coming out in Q4 (this one, Spec Ops: The Line, and CoD: Black Ops), I am looking forward to Medal of Honor the most. From what I've seen about the other two, they look like they're filled with sensationalist b.s. . -Any Mouse

:MoH looks WAY to much like Bad Company 2, and I think it's EAs fault. They want to capitalize on the modern warfare craze so much, they're using another popular series to boost sales. To be honest, MOH looks like BC2 with Taliban, and I'll most likely not be getting it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Medal of honor is not going to be way too much like BC2 because the gameplay will be much more tactical and realistic. Like real modern warfare.

:Says you man. Face it, it's going to be bought by the same type of people who buy MW2 and BC2, mostly idiot kids ranging from 10 to 15 who just wanna get four man sprays and noob tubes across the map. This is a console FPS that can be bought by anyone, and has nothing to offer that will make it overly unique, so it will end up like MW2 and BC2, noob weapons will arise, and it will just be another chaotic FPS. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:You got a point there.

Spec Ops: the Line is a third person shooter, not an FPS.

Sorry, my bad. I thought it was one of those deals like Fallout 3 where you could switch from first-to-third-person and back -Any Mouse

== Animations ==

I know this is off-topic, but am I the only one bothered by the way your character moves? If a gun is bouncing around in your hands while you move like that, there's gotta be something wrong...

I think that only happens in multiplayer due to it being a different engine, but yeah it is weird

== Full Auto M16A4 ==

Wouldn't having an M16A4 on full auto make it a C7A1? I know there are a few other differences, but they're all internal, it's the only difference visible in some way. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 18:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

:Well I would have said M16A3, but those didn't have rails. So yes, the only M16 variant that has an RIS system and goes full-auto is the C7A2, so indeed this new game uses a C7. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

::M16A4 with FA lower - what could be easier

:Personally, I wouldn't call "full-auto" M16A4 a C7A2. C7A2 has some, more or less significant, differences - e.g. ambidextrous fire selector or retractable stock. Plus Canadian military did not use full length RIS systems (e.g. like King Arms M5 on M16A4) on their C7s. Full-auto M16A4 is just another game-developer inaccuracy created by lack of knowledge about firearms. Unfortunately, it's a trend in nowadays mainstream FPS like Modern Warfare or Battlefield Bad Company. Game developers just give a sh*t about this stuff. 13-year-old kids screaming and b*tching in multiplayer would not notice the difference. [Ragnar]
:: 3-burst is for nubs that can't cut it by themselves.

::The M5 RAS on the M16A4 is made by KAC, not King Arms. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 11:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course I realize that having it full auto is just a screw up, like in most movies, and I'm not talking about the C7A2, with the green furniture and ambi controls, I meant the C7A1, which is the same in terms of appearance. Here's one without an ELCAN, because I know someone will complain about that:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/76/20080716042205!C7A1_with_IronSights.JPG
Oh and you can put the KAC Rails on any M16-length AR, so that's not really an issue, some of the C7A1s (like the one pictured) had them put on before the C7A2 was introduced with the TRIAD. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 18:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:It could be a C7, but really, it's just EA's lack of knowledge about weapons, cause full auto is what every assault rifle shoots, right? Man, games like Call of Duty 4 tried their best to keep weapons accurate, now it's all about tacticool weapons that fire full auto and have cool sights and nice finishes. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah I know, and guns don't need to be re-chambered after they run empty too :p in this and Bad Company 2, it's kind of distracting when I'm playing to be honest, well, I've gotten used to it a little more by now. Okay what I don't get is why can't it be listed as a C7A1? Or at least mentioned... If there was an gun listed as an M4 (not A1) and it was firing full auto you guys would have no problem saying it's actually an M4A1, or an AK-47 is really an AKM, so why can't the M16 really be a C7? I realize it's just a mistake on the developer's part, but that doesn't stop us pointing out the other ones... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

:I think it would be a good idea if we mentioned that in reality, this would class it as a C7A1 etc. [[User:Hoot471|Hoot471]] 18:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Has there even ever been any instances of a burst-firing M4 used in any movie or video game? At any rate, I think just noting that it's inaccurately portrayed as full auto is enough. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:Well if you talk to the Green Beret on Deadliest Warrior, he'll tell you the M4 can go burst AND full auto! But yeah, just classify the M16 in MOH as a C7A1, cause in reality that's what it is. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

::http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/1009334.page
Best 5 minutes of my life reading this! [[User:Hoot471|Hoot471]] 20:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

''Well if you talk to the Green Beret on Deadliest Warrior, he'll tell you the M4 can go burst AND full auto!'' - Believe it or not, 4-position selectors for AR-15 type rifles exist. There should be a link to the patent in the Season 2 discussion. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 22:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "Green Berets" on that show were idiot actors who didn't do their research, so I don't really give a crap about what they say. The M4A1 as used by the US military is safe/semi/auto, no burst. 4-pos selectors may exist, but the US military does not use them. That also wasn't an answer my question. ''Have there ever been any instances of a burst-firing M4 used in any movie or video game?'' By "burst-firing M4", I mean the M4 with M16A2/A4 trigger group as issued en mass to regular US Army troops. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I only know of two games that have M4s with the A2/A4 trigger group. There's one of the Call of Duty Modern Warfare games for the Nintendo DS, and then there's the Battlefield 2 mod [[Project Reality]], where it features both burst-firing M4s for the Americans and full-auto M4A1s for the Israelis.--[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Thank you, that ''did'' answer my question. Also, lol @the thread on EA Forums. That was a pretty entertaining read. Though I quite disagree with the guy who claims you can't know anything about an M16 or other firearm without having handled or used one. I've never handled an M16, but I still know the difference between an A1, A2, A3, and A4. Good thing I quit bothering with that place within the first few days I registered, otherwise I'd probably be ankle-deep in that ****storm. XD [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 22:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

== Hi-Def MP videos ==

You guys might want to check this out: On YouTube, there's someone by the name of deluxe345 who has Hi-Definition videos from the Medal of Honor multiplayer (there are 3 or 4). Also, in one of these videos, I spotted an M224 mortar in the killfeed.

==360 Beta?==
Alright, does anyone on Earth have a clue when the 360 beta for this comes out!? PS3 and PC went up June 21st, and yet 360 is still delayed, anyone got a clue? [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

User:M14fanboy

2010-07-17T06:08:53Z

M14fanboy: /* Pages I've Contributed To */

== M14fanboy ==
I'm not gonna give you my life story, but I might as well say something. I'm John, a 16 year old firearm and military fanatic from eastern Canada. I don't get my knowledge from video games, but rather from excessive reading on both the internet and through books and magazines, not to mention word of mouth. I'm a very knowledgeable guy when it comes to weapons, especially WWII and modern era, and I could talk for hours on many different wars. I'm also an avid gamer, rocking the Xbox Live most days of the week. you can find me on Live as CarlsonsRaiders, feel free to add me, but include a message saying your from IMFDB please. I have held and fired plenty of real firearms, and despite only being 16, I know my way around a weapon and am always sure to use proper gun safety. Along with guys like moviepropmaster, I believe this site should keep a high level of order and neatness, and we should try to do our best to show, describe and discuss the weapons of movies and video games in our world.

Cheers!

== Favorite Movies ==
*[[Hard Boiled]]
*[[Desperado]]
*[[Casino Royale]]
*[[Quantum of Solace]]
*[[Commando]]
*[[Predator]]
*[[Ronin]]
*[[Heat]]
*[[Saving Private Ryan]]
*[[Lethal Weapon]]
*[[Die Hard]]
*[[Robocop]]
*[[Goldeneye]]
*[[Red Dawn]] (And I hate to admit that)
*[[Black Hawk Down]]
*[[Rambo: First Blood]]
*[[Rambo: First Blood Part 2]]
*[[Rambo 3]]
*[[Rambo (2008)]]
*[[Beverly Hills Cop]]
*[[Rampage]]

== Favorite Video Games ==
*[[Far Cry 2]]
*[[Mercenaries 2: World in Flames]]
*[[Grand Theft Auto IV]]
*[[Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas]]
*[[Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare]]
*[[Call of Duty: World at War]]
*[[Rainbow Six: Vegas 2]]
*[[Battlefield: Bad Company]]
*[[Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction]]
*[[Resident Evil 4]]
*[[Resident Evil 5]]
*[[Modern Warfare 2]]
*[[Saints Row 2]]
*[[Battlefield: Bad Company 2]]
*[[Fallout 3]]

== Pages I've Contributed To ==
*[[Beverly Hills Cop 3]] - Heavily contributed to text.
*[[Mercenaries 2: World in Flames]] - Heavily contributed to text.
*Various other pages - text edits, tidying up etcetera.

==Favourite Guns==

*FN FAL
*Browning Hi-Power
*Springfield M14
*FN F2000
*FN Five-seveN
*FN P90
*Taurus PT92
*H&K MP7A1
*GIAT FAMAS
*Franchi SPAS-12
*H&K G3
*MacMillan TAC-50
*FN MAG-58
*FN MINIMI
*Steyr AUG
*Enfield L85
*Tavor TAR-21
*FN SCAR-H
*Bruger & Thomet MP9
*Ruger P89
*Ruger Mk.1

==Guns I've Fired==
*FN C1 and C2 Rifles
*FN C6 Machine Gun
*Ruger Super Blackhawk Revolver
*Smith & Wesson 5906 Pistol
*Winchester 2300 Pump Shotgun
*Browning BL-22 Rifle
*Colt M1911A1 Pistol
*Remington 700 Rifle
*H&K MP5 SMG

Talk:Legion

2010-07-17T06:05:09Z

M14fanboy: /* Sign your Damned posts! */

==Sign your Damned posts!==
Anyone who is too lazy to sign their damned posts doesn't deserve to have the post remain on the page. It's fine when you argue back and forth but to put forth zingers without signing it smacks of laziness. I am REMOVING all posts without a signature. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This movie looks awesome-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 03:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:Yeah it does --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 03:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::I found it really funny how I noticed straightaway on the poster that the MP5K was actually an SP89.-protoAuthor

I think the angels have metal wings. Rex095

'''ALL SCREENCAPS FROM ''LEGION-REDBAND TRAILER'' http://www.spike.com/blog/legion-red-band/85055'''

Storyline I got to say looks original. Haven't seen another film like it. Cant wait for it --[[User:k9870|k9870]]

'''G36's'''

Arn't these actually just G36 airsoft replicas? I have one at home. You can see the ejecton ports are fake and meerley just cast in plastic. --[[User:Captain Snikt|Captain Snikt]] 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this.....it was weird. The metal wings were badass though, and some of the movie was just funny. -k9870

This movie isn't weird, it's crap. This movie was, in all fairness, absolutely terrible. There were plot holes big enough to fly a C130 through. The whole thing was just low-grade gun porn (oh man, they showcased guns that I've only seen in every movie with a gun in it. 1911? Check. M16? Check. MP5? Check. Glock? Check. Some sort of shotgun? Check.) stereotypical characters (WASP? Check. Rebellious daughter? Check. Black Man from the streets? Check. Religious Black Man? Check. Hillbillies? Check.), bad acting, and plotholes.--[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 06:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lowl.. Too rite, mate.

:The gangsta has a M1911 and all the rednecks have Glocks? The director got his gun stereotypes mixed up

::It' because Michael breaks into a gun store and takes lots of guns and when he arrives at Paradise Falls it is said that he gives the guys Glocks and MP5s... I haven't seen the film yet, but I've read the script. Can't wait to see this, inspite of the reviews... ;)

From a religious standpoint... Lord, this movie sucked. First of all, the idea that God stopped forgiving people. Ok, the idea sucks, but I understand if you're not a Christian or familiar with the bible. The idea that God NEEDED something? He is GOD. He needs NOTHING. Even to a nonereligious person, the idea that a supreme, all powerful Being needed something is pretty... argh! And who the beep is this baby, anyway? The Second Coming? Messiah point-two? Why on Earth (forgive the pun) would God decide to exterminate humanity while this whole super baby deal was going on? I don't expect Hollywood to be reverent, I'm not that crazy, but do I expect them to at least get a feel for the God they're portraying. Whew. I'm done.

::From a non-crazy standpoint... The idea of a god is ridiculous itself! :) LOL... This is just a brains-roll-out-fun-roll-in -type o' movie that's not to be taken seriously... get over it...

Okay so now lets hear from folks who understand that it's a MOVIE.
:As a movie, it's garbage. As entertainment, it's garbage. This movie isn't 'fun' unless you're retarded.
::Does it make you feel good to insult people who might enjoy a movie you don't? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::When you say garbage, do you mean "Plan 9 garbage", or "Uwe Boll garbage"?--[[User:PistolJunkie|PistolJunkie]] 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::In Uwe Boll's defense, Alone in the Dark had some pretty awesome firefights in it. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::: Legion, on the other hand, had no 'awesome firefights'. It suffered from many action movie cliches, including the lack of need to change mags. The firefights weren't exciting by any stretch; they were as boring as the rest of the movie. Not only that, but the movie was so cliched you could see events coming from miles away. Terrible, TERRIBLE movie. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::''(oh man, they showcased guns that I've only seen in every movie with a gun in it. 1911? Check. M16? Check. MP5? Check. Glock? Check. Some sort of shotgun? Check.)''

:::::Right, but if the director knows how to get the most visual impact from the guns' on-screen appearances, the types don't matter. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:This movie was complete trash. I torrented it off the net, and literally about 20 minutes in a had to turn it off. The plot was garbage and shot full of holes, and the action was pathetic at best. Honestly one of the worst movies I've ever seen, I'll out Far Cry ahead of this POS. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

=Tyrese's 1911 variant=
I think his 1911 is a Para-Ordnance Nite-Tac...
Is anybody able to confirm that? [[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] 15:56, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
::Reading the script again, it says that the gun is WESTERN ARMS .45. But it looks like a Para-Ordnance Nite-Tac to me..

[[Image:PANiteTac.jpg]]

[[Image:Legion1911.jpg]]

:::What the script says doesn't matter. Stuff changes between script and filming all the time. What matters is what gun the armorer brought to the set. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 02:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

==The M16==

I just watched this movie on Blu Ray, and Michael's M16 is actually an M16A4, not an M16A2. You can see the removable carry handle. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:Change it dude. I added the caps yesterday and was going with what was already on the page. M16's aren't my strong suit either.--[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

::Just watched a few scenes again. It looks like the M16s are a mix of A2s and A4s. But the A4 is the one visible in most of your screen captures. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 04:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

==VARIOUS==
Is there going to be an attempt to classify each of the firearms in the "various" section, or a listing perhaps? I'll grab my DVD and start running through if anyone agrees. [[Special:Contributions/68.40.79.190|68.40.79.190]] 04:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:Don't make a listing or a heading of each one, simply write the names of the firearms you see seperated by commas in the caption for the image. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

::Aside from the Mossberg 500 and Winchester 1200, most of them are guns that have already been documented, anyway. Also, those M16s are clearly the airsoft replicas again. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 04:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:On Deadly Ground

2010-07-12T22:27:09Z

M14fanboy:

what did Otto(in ON Deadly Ground) use to break Hugh's fingers.

[[User:GuyGuy|GuyGuy]] 22:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)if memory serves, it was a polished horn or tusk of some kind.

==USAS-12 Rate of Fire==
:I understand the USAS is full automatic, but in the film it seems to be firing at a rate I'd reckon to be 500 RPM or more, and that seems high for a shotgun. Maybe just a higher ROF sound effect over the slower firing gun? [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-11T21:26:51Z

M14fanboy: /* Linked to World at War */

This game has a cold war look to it

==add m16 to page==

It was delted since there was no in game footage, but then there is a m16 slung to the main guy's back on the cover. i say add it. I know theres no in ge screenshot yet, but look, theres no in game shots of 1911s either.

Buddy, that stuff has been added already-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

m16 has been removed, only "ar-15 carbine" is there.

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense
:M3A1 "Grease Gun"/Suppressed M3A1, Carl Gustav M/45/Suppressed M/45, suppressed Uzi, CAR-15 w/CGL or M203, Ithaca 37, Remington 870, Remington 7188 Automatic Shotgun, SOG modified RPD, M-60 "Death Machine"(M-60 w/ cut down barrel and ammo pack), HK-33(Harrington and Richardson T223).
:RPD, MAT-49/suppressed MAT-49--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Harry's Smith & Wesson Model 29 and Tony Montana's "Little Friend"

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More oticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:Reality is fanboy the US 40mm rounds have a 5 meter kill radius. meaning that if you are 15 feet away from the blast you are dead as a doornail. the 40mm grenades in bad company are more useful as doorway makers and cover destroyers than as proper suport weapons. what is pissing off alot of us who care about little things called historic accuracy is the fact that even though they say that everyone had to read about MACV:SOG they have gotten few details right. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the 40mm is not terribly powerful in BC2, but explosives need to be less powerful in games than they would in real life, imagine Claymores with realistic spread, damage, and range, without those stupid little lasers, and without bomb squad. Or frag grenades, they're overspammed as it is. Doing something like that is less realistic, but needed for the game to work. Having something like and AUG in 1968, or a SPAS-12 used by Vietcong around the same time... not so much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:I agree Alex, because Claymores are really designed to take out a huge radius of enemies, it could easily wipe out an eight man squad. and a frag in a 10 by 10 room would really kill everything inside. If they went for realism, all the 5.56 assault rifles in MW2 would have the same damage and virtually the same recoil, but for balance the TAR is portrayed as extremely powerful, and the ACR weak. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Yeah, it just bothered me that they were THAT different, they could have chosen different weapons if they wanted to balence them like that or something, the part that bugs me the most is that COD4 was better balenced AND made more sense, it's just such a step back... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Linked to World at War ==

It has been conformed that Reznov from World at War will appear in this game and even make comments about Dimitri Petrenko. This was seen on the Call of Duty Wiki

:Yes, as Reznov is more or less confirmed to be the bearded man you meet and then split from in the tunnel rat scene at E3. I'm happy to see him back, as he made World at War even better for me, maybe now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!" [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::"now he'll continuously yell "Fire the Javelin!"" What's a Javelin doing in the cold war? Oh wait I forgot, it must be a secret prototype no one knew about.

:Alright, I was thinking in an MW2 state of mind, lemme see. I know, how about him always yelling "FIRE THE LAW" in your ear every two seconds when something as small as a jeep shows up [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-11T00:15:01Z

M14fanboy: /* Linked to World at War */

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-09T04:32:13Z

M14fanboy: /* Goofs and screw-ups */

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops

2010-07-07T06:23:18Z

M14fanboy: /* Goofs and screw-ups */

This game has a cold war look to it

==Weapons that would make sense==
M72, M60, M14, Stoner 63, M40A1, M16A1, MAC-10, Remington 1100, Smith & Wesson M76, Browning Hi-Power, Hawk MM1, Smith & Wesson 39

AK-47, AK-74, Mosin-Nagant, PM Makarov, Steckin APS, SKS, Dragnnov, PKM

-Add any other weapons that would make sense

==Should be==
There should be M72 LAWs, M60s and M14s. cause this is Vietnam baby!

Nah. They just arent cool enough for Treyarch. And if they will add those weapons - They will all have RIS rails, scopes, lasers, GL attachemnts, silencers.... --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)No need for your cheap sarcasm here. This game doesn't seems to pursue that Nam atmosphere with rocknroll, massive chopper assaults, jungle patrols and "smell of napalm in the morning"

I'm sure you will also be able to pick up laser weapons and crap like that. [[User:SargeOverkill]]

==E3==

Added E3 screens - .357 Python and AR15 .

== Not an AK-47 ==
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the mag isn't curved enough to be a 7.62x39 mag? It could be a -74 prototype, without the flash hider. Given the time frame, this may make sense.

Thanks for that, I also didn't note it before. It looks to be a WASR-2/3.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG it is damn videogame for god's sake, the guns aren't real and are nothing more than 3d drawings -of course they aren't going to be exactly like such and such gun. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'''3D drawning''' ? Hell, that would be interesting. And GTFO, this is '''firearms site''' and ''YES'', we care about reality. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well guess what, THESE ARENT GUNS!!! They aren't effing real they are nothing more than 3d models that someone threw together in 3DS MAX or whatever the hell they use so of course its not going to be up to every detail, That's why I don't do VG pages anymore--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

::You appear to have missed the point of this website...

AsAstra, the point that I don't think you're understanding, is that even if they're merely three dimensional renderings of the guns, and not the guns themselves, we should try to be as correct as possible. If something says that it's an Ak-74, but actually looks more like a different gun, we should call it the different gun, so as not to confuse anyone new to the site. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the AK, knowing video game developers the AK being used by the Vietcong will most likely be the same one in those snow picks. I don't think we can call it a 47 right of the bat.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]

== Degtyarov ==
It just cant be DPM. Lok - It totally doesnt have ironsights - And MAG isnt on top. + Its very unlikely some guy will cary Spas12 and Degtyarev. I just think its some AK type - Or it may be some different gun, but it isnt Degtyarev.
You may keep it there, but it will be false information.

==ummmm==
This page really needs a cleanup or a deletion.
There is also too much informal talk on the page itself, infact all of it is. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

===Moved from main page--[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)===
== AR-10 ==

Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like [[Armalite AR-10]] A4

[[Image:AR10-4.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Armalite AR-10 A4 7.62x51mm.]]
[[Image:AR10.JPG|thumb|none|400px|M16 Family unknown gun as appeared in Black Ops teaser.]]

:The magazine seems too long to be an AR-10

Also the AR10 is a civilian gun right? So why would special forces like that guy above be holding it? I personally think its an M16(either A1 or A2) with a scope attached to its carrying handle/iron sight.

:It's a strange AR-15 Carbine with a flat top [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AR-10 is not necessarily civilian. It is entirely possible that SOF would use one.

I think is not AR10.AR10 use .308 or 7.62x51mm round and the magazine large and short than AR15.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.

== Un-identified guns ==

[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[Image:UNKNOWNLOL.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''2''' : I totally dont know.But it may be some russian one.]]
It seems to look like a [[MAC-10]] or an [[Uzi]] with the stock extended-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
[[Image:UNKNOWN THE MOST.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''4''' : Its hard to tell which gun this one is, but it looks like [[Beretta AR-70/223]] or Daewoo K2. I think that this gun could be any gun I see and AK there but it could be a siper rifle for all we know]]
As to the first unknown gun, it's too short to be a G3, so I believe it's an MP5. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== RPK ==

From the looks of it, it might be an RPK-74. Note the 45-round banana mag and the flash suppressor.

The "RPK" and the "Valmet" are the same guns - look carefully at the screenshot. Given that the 7.62mm AK-47 appears in game and the timeline, I'm gonna say that it's not an RPK-74, but a 7.62x39mm RPK or one made to look like a Valmet for some reason. Maybe Treyarch modelers are using 80's action movies as a reference for their RPK model. *shakes head*

No. Look on that "RPK" an you will see typical RPK stock. Look on "Valmet" and you will see it doesnt look like Valmet :)--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the front of the Valmet trigger guard. Now look at that same exact place on the "Valmet" in the game picture. Different. There is no Valmet, it's an RPK.

Moved "Unknown LMG" stuff to the RPK-74 section. Whoever posted those images under there originally failed to notice the way the RPK-74 front sight is canted compared to the Valmet. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

==M1911==

In the title screen there is a soldier holding a 1911 i believe it also says something on the side.

It says "Sally" on the slide.

The 1911 looks more like the first and not the A1, look at the ejection port.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's to hoping it's 1911s will be in the arsenal in multi-player, and not the tease in MW2 --[[Special:Contributions/67.181.114.114|67.181.114.114]] 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG

== Wait... ==
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--[[Special:Contributions/76.235.34.31|76.235.34.31]] 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== good decision ==

As well as Weapon customization there will also be a character customization feature.
- That game is gonna be just awesome. Character customization ? Damn, just in R6:V style (ha-ha)

* Custom characters? hell yeah --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
i agree with that customization policy, i liked how in R6V2 they did that, and i can only hope they bring back CoD4s M4A1 Grenadier back, and i also completely agree with the historic battle/ war thing as compared to a (***Spoiler) nuclear warfare and a domestic terrorist plot, i would much rather see Black Hawk Down pop up in a newer game as opposed to Vietnam, but i would settle for a Operation Acid Gambit type game also.

Customizable characters in a game where... you can't actually ''see'' the character? FAIL.
* Customizable characters in game where will be 3rd person mode, and where other players can see it ? Your post '''fail'''.
:When did Black Ops become third person? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. He's saying that other characters will see your 3rd person form. Also, it's noteworthy that MW2 DID have third person mode.
:So then I've gotta agree. Character customization in a game where you can't actually see your guy seems like a fail to me, too. It's not like anybody in MP is really gonna stop shooting at you to say "hey, cool guy, what kind of vest is that?" And how do I activate this third person mode in MW2? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Well, i dont know. But what about trying "3RD PERSON" in "Play" screen ?

I think it's hilarious how people are whinig about the customization... Go play R6. Custom characters work in FPS games.
:Yeah, i bought R6:V2 not so long ago and its amazing. I think that game has best character customization ever. Its only pity you cant do anything with your teammates.
:R6V also has a cover system where you can actually ''see'' the guy/girl you're playing as, a third person mode cheat, and player characters who actually have voices and speak rather than being mutes with no form of personality whatsoever, none of which Black Ops has. I simply think character customization is unnecessary. That's not whining, it's called ''having an opinion". [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the post fail it was an update its not like i'm wrong. its not like i said there would be some sort of Grizzly Bear cannon. it was a NEWS UPDATE!!! THINK next time a stupid comment is thought by yourself.
Also heres the ANSWER the other players can see you just like AVP. so thats how customization comes in handy. [[user:moviemaster1993|moviemaster1993]]
:First off, I never said ''your post'' failed. That was ''your'' response to ''me'', smart ass. I was commenting on a feature of the game I think is unnecessary, something I'm fully allowed to do. You aren't the lord of opinions around here. Second, comparing Rainbow Six to Call of Duty is about as much of a failure as one can accomplish. Lastly, who the hell cares if another player can see you? I wouldn't be customizing my character for other people, just like other people aren't going to be customizing their characters for me. It's not like everybody's gonna stop shooting and comment on every other player's individual character, is it? The only stupid comments on here are coming from ''you''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== MP5k ==

You think they're putting that in there to copy MW2?
:No I think they're doing it to fulfill their MP5 quota. MW2 wasn't the first game to feature the MP5K, broski.-protoAuthor 00:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They also have an AUG in the game and a SPAS-12. Not a coincidence that MW2 also has these. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But THIS game is directly part of the COD franchise. It's a bit repetitive to show guns that has been in previous games. Well ok WWII games don't count because they cant help having the same guns, but this is supposed to be Treyarch's turn at making a new game, but so far, none of the weapons are new. What about instead of the SPAS-12, we get an 870, or instead of the AUG, we get...any other bullpup rifle of the time. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I derinitely think they're putting the MP5k in to copy MW2. They could have put in any other variant of the MP5, variants that weren't in prototype stage and would probably be more combat effective, but they went with the k variant. That said I don't think it's any coincidence the SPAS-12 and AUG is in there either.

Well, Treyarch apparently didnt start copying first. MW2´s specops get idea fairly sure from WaW´s coop system :D
:The latest issue of the official xbox magazine says that they originally had planned on having co-op throughout the entire campaign in MW2, but cut it because it messed with the narrative. Or, it would've been way too fun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the AUG was stupid in the game, no1 in USSOCOM uses that gun
* Would you mind telling what do you have against bullpup designs, beside "the looks"?--[[User:WhiteSlift|WhiteSlift]] 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
* Heh. MP5k get into service 20 years after Vietnam war. There was only prototype in latest parts pf Vietnam war. MAC10 or UZI would be much more realistic in hands of US soldiers. Atleast much more than prototype gun. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 06:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
*"MP5K get into service 20 years after Vietnam war"...the MP5K isn't that new. Considering that the war ended in 1975, and the MP5K was introduced in 1976, you are way off.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

true why would they be carrying a Prototype in to combat

Because it's a video game that doesn't care about accuracy and realism. I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented? Go ahead and put them on your rifle in Nam, it's the new trend.

Why are you complaining about the AUG in particular, I mean USSOCOM doesn't use it? Yeah, well they sure as hell don't use the deagle or the AA12 or the FAMAS but I don't see you complaining

"I mean what loser actually waits until Picatinny rails to be invented?" Picatinny rails have been around since 1913, broski.
:Not in their modern version, Broseph Stalin.

You all are forgetting..this is SOG, not SOCOM. SOG could carry into battle whatever they wanted to. Could they have carried a prototype MP5K? Sure! Keep in mind..they had access to stuff that NOBODY ELSE in the military had access to at that time. Hell..one time they brought an airhorn with them and scared the crap out of an entire NVA division with it.

== What the hell is up with this AR-15 Carbine? ==

It looks like a 733, but at the same time, not since it also has a flat top, but the scenes in the trailer that showed this rifle is assumed to be Vietnam era, so a flat top AR-15 shouldn't exist at the time much less a rail system for it. Also the same AR also has a rear iron sight on the flat top. This doesn't make sense [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- I think its XM177, but customized way to much. Its mucb more possible that Treyarch just failed. I think they just added rail system/flat top just because MP. You know, attachments. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 05:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::It cannot be an XM177 if it has a flattop receiver. Those did not exist when the XM177s were introduced. The flash hider is also Vortex, not the XM177-type. The game's 3D artists might have been ignorant about what AR carbines existed at the time. But that is not an XM177. Not by a long shot. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the game's 3D rendering tech was mostly like stone because it's the 60s and 70s, but the trailer animation is horrible! I could barely tell what was going on and the weapon details are no where like MW2. Say what you want about MW2 when it comes to consistencies, but at least they can render their weapons correctly. My first upload of that funky AR-15 shows the handguard as this polygon like thing. And did flat top receivers exist during Nam? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''And did flat top receivers exist during Nam?''

:::No, not at all. My recollection is that the Colt ACR (introduced in the 1980s) was the first AR-type rifle to feature a flattop receiver. Even though the ACR was a bust, flattops were subsequently carried over into future AR generations. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

With these seemingly anachronistic flat top recievers and flip up sights I think this game is headed towards failure. Seems like they're taking the MW2 route and making their "balanced" and cosmetically changed multiplayer weapons also appear in single player. I hope by some miracle they don't or else they don't get my money.

:And here I remember talking to my brother about how they can fuck up the M16 by either putting A2s or burst A1s, but this is WAY over there in the incorrect area. Haven't they seen any Nam movies? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

: Excalibur01 - or use five minutes just f-i-v-e f**king minutes of their time and try to google some Vietnam-era photos. Or they could hire someone with at least basic knowledge of era background and weaponery. You know, they spent money on countless other things. But I guess that Call of Duty is now like B-rated action movies. Make as many as you can and don't worry about the quality. Nobody gives a s*it about how it looks like or if it is correct as far as it would look cool and geek teen age kiddos would pay the money so they could play multiplayer on their lagging net servers. [Ragnar - 22:25, 19 May 2010]

Hopefully they at least have the M16 have full auto instead of burst, would make it more fun that way. I did read that this isn't taking place in vietnam on yahoo news which probably is incorrect but this is ridulous of the weapons they are putting in.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I read an IGN article that it'll take place throughout the Cold War, from the end of Nam to Cuba and also Princess Gates London [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I researched the history of picatinny rails, turns out Treyarch may have actually done very good research. This is what I found: "The MIL-STD-1913 standard was developed out of efforts during the M16A1 Product Improvement Program which eventually resulted in the M16A2. One of the abandoned ideas was a receiver with a built-in rail. In the 1970s, Rock Island Arsenal experimented with a sniper AR-10 with a Weaver rail. In Vietnam, the Model 656 had a built-in rail." Source:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-18737.html
I don't know about you guys, but I'm now willing to believe the rails on this AR (Model 656?) isn't a goof at all.
:Well, its always good to know new thing :) But i think it still wasnt regular Vietnam equipment. And i also think there wont be even M16 or M16A1 ingame.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::True, it wasn't regular Vietnam equipment. But these aren't regular soldiers either. These guys are top secret black ops, higher than tier one operators. They can use any weapon in the world, even ones that are in secret development. And you're probably right, I doubt there'll be an M16, simply because these experimental ARs look cooler, have a bit of mystery around them, and can accept multiple attachments. But I wouldn't be surprised if they name the rifles M16.

The model 656 looked like this:

[[Image:model 656.jpg]]

It was just an early M16 with an early style rail system. So far, I have not found images of a Carbine with these types of rails, experimental or not. Rails were not on the forefront of military minds before the 90s. The military didn't even decided to put rails on the M16 until a decade after the M4 came out. And even the Model 656 rails were not on a flat top receiver like the ones on an M4. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Aw crap, there goes my theory. Looks like it's back to just being a Treyarch fail.

I'm not one to justify inaccuracy in videogames but, the upper receiver on the 656 could easily be swapped with that of an AR-15 carbine. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure...but the one we see in the game is not the same rail receiver as the one the 656 has. It has a flat top like an M4 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the front sight isn't removed when an optic attachment is present, an improvement over other COD games. Maybe Treyarch realized an AR would be bolt-action if the gas block was removed.
:Low-profile gas block is not visible from first-person perspective. And 3-d person gun models were made as low-poly as possible to minimise system loads(this was crucial because games was intended for Xbox in first place)

Who know CAR-15 with rear flip up sight use in vietnam war? I see a south vietnam flag in picture.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
: No. Though, prototype flat-top receiver and flip-up like on your screen could be possible, but it just doesn't look authentic to the time period. I wouldn't mind if they put in something like Model 656(pictured above). But they really need to get rid of that modern-looking AR.
[[Image:CODBOAR-15b.jpg|thumb|none|500px|]]

== Complaints ==
Hey, it's a game, not a history lesson. It's all about fun and style and so. I do like a realistic movie or game, but I don't hate a game just because the artists created something they think it's better this way. Nobody complains when a director sums up a car ride that would take 1 hour in real life in one scene in the movie, or when he puts the light where the sun can never be just to make it look good, but when someone puts a cool looking AUG in a game set before 1977, because it looks cool, or creates his own creative vision of an AR-15 everyone freaks out. All the time you hear people say "They should have done better research!" or "They don't know anything about history!", but maybe the did research, and they know history, and they discussed it and decided that they want to create something own, because they feel it fits better in their creative work than what real life history can give them.

*Yeah, you are right. Now we need M1 Abrahams tank in some Napoleonic Wars strategy. Cause that tank is just cool - right ? Or maybe M4 Carbine in WW2 shooter ?--[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/04/the-activision-lawsuit-what-it-means-and-where-it-s-going.aspx] If that means they have to cheat a bit regarding the weapons, I'm willing to give them some leeway. Let's face it, we're probably the only people who truly care anyway. None of these inaccuracies are going to keep any of us from buying this game when it comes out and playing the heck out of it. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not legally obligated to keep it from going beyond Vietnam. As that article says..all they need is full approval from West and Zampella. Considering those two aren't rampant assholes..it's a total possibility.
:That's a bit like saying other people can write Harry Potter novels as long as JK Rowling is okay with it, or other studios can make Star Wars movies as long as George Lucas is okay with it. Have you looked at the games IW has made? Have you noticed a pattern? (For those who don't want to look, all they make are CoD games. That is literally all they have going for them.) Sure, they COULD give away their golden goose and let someone develop else something Activision has given them exclusivity with, but I can't imagine a single scenario where they would. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

* Well, msot of CoD players wont even recognize M16 and M4 or HK416. So yep - We are maybe only ones who care about it :/ --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::And mind you, Treyarch is the same developer that had Japanese troops using suppressed MP40s with reflex sights in WaW. Oh, and a RAY GUN TO SHOOT ZOMBIES. That being said, I was devastated when I found out that MW2 wouldn't have zombies, and I'll be even more devastated if BO doesn't have them. IMHO, zombies was the best part of WaW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
* And IW had OMOH with FN2000´s and IMI Tavor´s - So whats the difference :D Hope zombies will be includeProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

too.

:Ok the Zombie thing in WaW was a side game. It's not part of the "story". If the zombies and the ray gun appeared in the actual missions, then we'd called bullshit but with a smile cause zombies are awesome to fight. The suppressors and red dot sights were for multiplayer to compete with COD4 at the time, so those don't count. We're talking historically accurate, period piece weapons. It's like we do a game taking place during the Civil War but we all got 1911s as handguns and M1 Garands as rifles. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're telling me you wouldn't play a Civil War game where you can use an M1 Garand? ;)True, they tried that with Darkest of Days, but it was terribly done. And second, you CAN get the ray gun for one of the campaign missions, and it is awesome. (You can take down a tank with two shots.) But I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying we shouldn't let the nitty gritty get in the way of good gameplay, especially since Treyarch already has one hand legally tied behind their backs. Would they want to make a Modern Warfare-like game set in present day or the near future? Sure, but they can't, they're legally handcuffed to inflexible historical fact. Besides, no game has ever gotten its weapons exactly right. We have an entire generation of kids who believe an M1 Garand can't be reloaded without firing the entire clip, or it has less stopping power than a K98K. I won't lose any sleep if BO has AR-15s with flat top receivers, but I will if the game sucks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know if there gonna screw this game why don't the just add a bunch of laser guns or crap. I mean i could understand if the weapons in the game where off, but i have a feeling this game is going to be a cluster F***
::We're basing a lot on two trailers and some scanned images from a magazine 5.5 months from release. I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually play it or at least hear from people who have actually played it. Treyarch has little to lose here. If it's great, people will praise them, if it's not, people already think they're the Fredo Corleone to IW's Michael Corleone in the Activision family. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And while we're here, we've been talking about how the angle of the AK mag is slightly off, but is anyone else annoyed that if you do a tactical reload and drop half a mag, those rounds in the discarded mag magically go back into your ammo stockpile and you don't lose them? This has been true in 99.7% of all FPS's I've ever played. Gamers have accepted the idea of the consequence-free tactical reload for over a decade now. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::You're right it's a crying shame. Not only because it's more accurate when the game keeps track of ammo in specific mags but it also adds another challenge and element of strategy. I also enjoy the one game I've played that keeps track of the +1 round in your gun when you reload. I wish more games were like that. Sad thing is I don't see COD heading in the right direction ever again.
:::::The one time I saw them do the tactical reload correctly was... Navy SEALs Quake, a mod for Quake II. Yes, it was a mod made by amateurs over ten years ago. The big game companies aren't doing it right because they don't want to. I remember the first time I played a game that had different animations for reloading with a round in the chamber and one without. Operation Winback on the N64, also ten years ago. It was a nice touch. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

* But we arent complaining here about animation and bullet system, damn. We are critising look of those guns ! That stramge XM177/AR15 hybrid was seen many times in reveal trailer, so we can judge it. And it failed. Its still better when you have realistic gun without realistic ammo system than crazy-unrealistic looking gun with realistic ammo system. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it'd be that hard to replace the skin. [[Black]] didn't give a damn about realism, but it was still enjoyable as hell. The way I see it, ultimately, it's just a game, to be played because it's fun, not as an interactive history lesson. If you want accuracy, watch the Military Channel or actually go out to the range. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, it doesnt have to be "interactive history lesson" but atleast a bit of realism would be nice. '''''BTW''': I visit shooting range once or twice in month :)''

As pointed out, we don't want TOTAL realism. Otherwise, one bullet hit to the chest is enough to kill you. At least head shots are instant kills in the game. But we're doing a game based on a particular period and it has to be accurate. I mean, if you were watching a WWI movie and see soldiers with M16s. That's a bit jarring right? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Now he will answer it isnt jarring. If the movie has cool effects and famous actors.
:::Jarring, maybe, but I don't know if it'd ruin it for me. (Is it a sci-fi film? Surrealism? A film by Uwe Boll?) It'd be one thing to have blatant mistakes, like M16s in WWI, but would it have ruined [[Saving Private Ryan]] if Sgt Horvath had a post war M1 Carbine with a bayonet lug and adjustable rear sights instead? Did the fact that the officers had Webley Mark VI's instead of Adams Mark III's ruin [[Zulu]]? Did the fake M72 LAW in [[Ronin]] take you out of the movie? If it didn't, it's because you chalked it up as a goof, moved on, and enjoyed the rest of an otherwise good movie. If it did, then I don't know what to tell you. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:52, 25 May 2010
(UTC)

Here's a hypothetical question: This game is called Black Ops, so theoretically, they can make up whatever they want, what do we know, it's a black op, and thus classified. What if all the weapons in the game were all fake, either outright, or fictional modifications of real weapons? Would we still be up in arms? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
: I hate to say it but you might be onto something. I've heard rumors that Black Ops will rewrite history and take place in an alternate past. This is probably how Treyarch can get around the legal restrictions of not being able to make post-Vietnam games and explain these BS weapons. Personally I think it's pretty weak but it explains it.
:: Well, if it does... Wait-It doesnt! I read some article with one of Treyarch members which strictly denied possibility of alternate reality. Ill repat it again : its just some Treyarch modeller fail. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not rewriting history at all basically it's saying that during the Cold War what if there were some Black Ops that went down to keep the whole thing from escalating into an actual official war. Which is completely possible.
:::It doesn't have to be alternate history, just a secret history. It's implied that the JFK assassination will be in the game. Is the player the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Is he supposed to stop the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Does he successfully stop a possible third gunman? They can make up anything they want in that scenario. A mission can have the player equipped with a prototype laser rifle, but it's scripted so the rifle is damaged or lost along the way, and the technology is lost forever. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if they do include Dirty Harry's gun and Tony Montana's "Little Friend".

The Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr - Universal Army Rifle) had been in development since the late 1960s, as a replacement for venerable but obsolete Stg.58 (FN FAL) battle rifles for Austrian army. It was developed by the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company (now the Steyr-Mannlicher AG & Co KG) in close conjunction with Austrian Army.See? It's not that wrong. Got it from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
:It's still wrong. Just because the AUG was in development doesn't mean a working prototype existed. And if it's supposed to be the prototype, why does the AUG in the game look like the production version, only without the grip, and not as depicted in the prototype drawing shown on the World Guns page? I think the whole prototype explanation is a lame excuse in order to include more modern weapons in the game. I would much rather see the weapons that SOG actually used included in Black Ops, instead of an assault rifle that we've seen about 5 billion times in other shooters. I already posted below how Treyarch could have used the Remington 7188 full auto shotgun in the game. This weapon was actually used in Vietnam, and as far as i know has never been used in a video game, but instead they chose the SPAS-12, which didn't exist at the time and has been used in dozens of other shooters.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unknown ==
The rocket launcher under unknown is an M202 FLASH rocket launcher. Ashdude01 20:20 19 May 2010

Yes there is i added it to the guns page but some moron removed it

moviemaster1993 11:58 may 2010

== Carcano M91/38? ==

The images provided doesn't shot much and it is said that it can't be a mosin Nagant because the barrel is too short. Well it could be the carbine length variant or any other short barrel bolt action rifle. I can't see anything in the picture. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like its picture of that gun. Remember that game has to do something with JFK asassination and there can be barelly seen "Lee Harvey Oswald" on paper under that gun. So i think it have to be that gun - As some reference. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== M16 and XM177 ==

[[Image:Colts.JPG|thumb|none|500px|]]

Looks like the guy here has either an M16 as you can tell by the barrel pointing to the left and the barrel on the right looks like an XM177 [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a M16A1 to me..which makes sense..since the A2 didn't come around until the early to mid 80's.

== Embargo lifts tomarrow, the 28th ==

Ones the embargo lifts we will be flooded with info, especially about guns

What embargo? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an embargo for some journalist who previewed the game(they also could have played it too)and tomarrow it ends and info will get flooded all over the web

* It ended and only few informations and no new guns appeared. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 07:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

== Valment m78 ==
:The M78 does have its own page here, separate from the RPK. But yeah, I don't think the designers are gun-savvy enough to have both of these guns in this game.--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What the year of Valmet M78 build? I think is not use in vietnam war the NVA don't have a finnish weapons during the war.And i think in the picture the gun is not Valmet M78.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

: And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the picture of the unknown AK-type LMG has a front sight that upright on the front side and canted forward on the back side like the RPK-74's front sight? --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:The Valmet M78 was invented after the production of the M76 in 1976, which is another weapon considered anachronistic for the Vietnam War era if there's any in the game. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Time travel (well that would explain it) ==

[http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093572p1.html Another preview]
--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't exist [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
* Fixed that link. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 16:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:They were able to operate a U-2 from a carrier, but that wouldn't be nearly as sexy as flying an SR-71, now would it? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, You know how these game designers do ALL of their research. (Man I'm sarcastic tonight)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::It's pretty obvious that since MW2, the main source of research is action movies and Futureweapons reruns.

Damn straight.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

Not that I have anything against the SPAS-12, AUG, or AK47s, but we need to see different types of weapons. What about an 870, or the AK-74? What about other types of Bullpup? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

: You think 12-year old child knows difference between AK-74, AK-47 and AKs-74u ? That wont make sence..... Why making more weapons when you can add only those "cool" and overused ones ? --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My 11 year old brother can, just saying-[[User:SargeOverkill]]

== Prototypes ==

Just to let you know: German games magazine ''PC Games'' had an interview with the developers. In the latest issue, they write, that the black special ops team can get any equipment they want, including non-standard weapons, brand new prototypes and even customized and special built single pieces, <quote>which no one outside the team will ever get to see</quote>. So that is the official in-game explanation for every crude weapon you can see in the hands of the player.
:That's what I figured their reasoning would be. It makes sense but it's still a pretty weak explanation if you ask me.
:So super elite 1337 black ops delta teams can even get weapons ''that don't yet exist''? WTF? Why didn't our SF and SEALs in 'Nam have M4A1s with KAC rail systems, lasers, ACOGs, EOTechs, and bullets that can home in on enemy soldiers from 50 miles away, then??? It's a conspiracy to disarm the public, I tell you! But in all seriousness, I think it's an explanation that doesn't hold water. That mentality might work in 2016 during MW2, but not in a past setting like Vietnam where small arms development has been chronicled and we know where and to what it led. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think it does hold water. Of course these finalized weapons weren't around in the late '60s to mid '70s. But how do you know their prototypes weren't? Most of the weapons in-game will either be early prototypes or in the case of the AR custom-built weapons made by the SOG operatives.
::Ok, they could at least make it look like prototypes, not like modern weapons.
::Okay, then how about when the next WWII game comes out, they give all the troops M16s, M60s, Mark 48s, G36s, AKMs, XM29s, and XM8s because, you know, super secret black ops teams can get any piece of kit they want, even if it doesn't exist yet. All they have to do is jump in Doc Brown's time machine, travel through time and grab the latest kit, then head back. 1.21 gigawatts! [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I've said it once before, if it's done well, I will absolutely play it. Most people play game as a means of escape, so would it really make a difference if I shot a Nazi with an M16 or an M1 Garand? He's not REALLY dead. He's not even real, and we've contributed nothing to the winning of WWII, or any war. In fact, we've contributed nothing but to our own satisfaction. They're called video GAMES. Playing games is about having fun. I'm sure many if us here loved Nazi Zombies from WaW. Why? Because we love shooting Nazis, and we love shooting zombies, and Treyarch did us a favor by combining the two activities. And we love it even more if we can shoot them with a ray gun that comes out of a magic box. Was it historically accurate? No, but believe me, the history major in me learned to live with it. (Hell, now you've got me all worked up, because as I'm typing this, I can't wait to get the chance to catch Hitler and bin Laden in a meeting and spray the room with a minigun.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok i get your point, it's a video game, and fun or not it should have realism, i mean c'mon!-[[User:sargeOverkill]]
::::BTW, they already sort of did that with the Time Splitters series. And those games were awesome. (At least 2 and Future Perfect were. I never played 1.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I quite frequently have lots and lots and lots and lots of fun playing games, especially shooters, that adhere to reality. The reason I play a Vietnam or WWII shooter is because I want to immerse myself in the environment. That includes having weapons accurate to the period. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I guess that depends if you consider these games historical or not. I just lump it in with Halo and GoW now, as CoD flew off the historical rails about two or three games ago, straight into "anything goes" territory, which was good from a story telling perspective. Even when it tried to be historical (up to CoD 2) you were still one or two men who personally killed half the German army. That's why I thought releasing WaW on Veterans Day was a backhanded tribute, because nothing honors veterans like a game that allows you to win WWII singlehandedly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

==M14==

What with this being a Vietnam War game, I'm gonna be pretty pissed if you can't use a normal M14 rifle, without all the rails and crap.
[[Image:M14Rifle.jpg|thumb|none|500px|I want to use an M14 like this in-game]]

Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. They'll Probably put it in.
2. the rails are the modern demands of a soldier including the ability to easily mount optics and other accessories easily. theres nothing wrong with it.

:I'd like a regular wood stocked M14, and if you want optics, they did make a scope riser mount for M14s before rail systems. As for silencers, well that's easy, and heartbeat sensors shouldn't bother to return. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
::If they want to be accurate with attachments, then they should have a sniper scope and a suppressor (suppressors were available at that time).

Randy Shughart a delta force sniper never had anything fancy on his. as stated in BlackHawk down he had a vietnam era M14, with a scope. nothing fancy there. besides in vietnam there really wasnt a need for anything fancy. silencer, hell the vietcong already knew they were there because of the helo. Lam- hadn't been invented. and a tac light is slightly useless seeing how they were in a jungle 95% of the time. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

: All of these attachments really ''WONT'' make sence. '''But its Treyarch'''.

== AUG sans grip ==

What the hell is up with the AUG without a foregrip? I don't mind the fact the AUG is anachronistic, but come on...why take off something central to firing the gun. Maybe the gun is semi-automatic in the game, because our character has to plunge his hand into a bucket of ice to stop the burning after each shot.
:Yeah, I don't understand that decision. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they used the AUG with a grenade launcher as a model, like this one [http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg], and then just deleted the grenade launcher. But this would mean that no one working on the project A) ever saw a movie with an AUG, including [[Die Hard]], which I would think every male between the ages of 21-49 in the english speaking world has seen, or B) could put two and two together and figure out that putting your hand directly on a barrel is not practical. That, or the plot involves that character severely burning his hand. If not, it's an utterly indefensible and boneheaded decision by the Treyarch staff. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to be absolutely fair, the character is wearing heavy gloves while holding the barrel. But it still doesn't make sense. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::What doesn't make sense to me is that they have a military advisor on staff. How come, at no point in the development, did this man point out that holding a gun barrel while firing is a bad idea, and has he not seen an AUG before? - Opening Poster.

::Doesn't the grip fold up?-protoAuthor
:::Yes, but you'd still be able to see it. [http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg]--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I wrote that without seeing the image. Sorry.-protoAuthor
::::I agree with the grenade launcher theory, especially since multiplayer was done first. Who knows, they might actually change the standard AUG model before the game actually comes out.

The AUG without vertical grip.I think a gun barrel is very hot.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

In third person it's just a character model fail. In first person you grip I guess what you could call the "finger guard."

I've seen pics of the Austrian Army holding their AUGs by the trigger guard like a P90 but not the barrel itself, that's stupid. Plus, who the hell in 1968 would even take a design like the AUG seriously. The M16 was just starting to be taken seriously by military brass around 1968.

== OXM article ==

Official XBox Magazine did a feature on Black Ops (July 2010, issue 111,) and I figure I'd share some highlights:

- It was inspired by the book "SOG: The Secret Wars of America's Commandos," by Major John Plaster. [http://www.amazon.com/SOG-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/1581606761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275440842&sr=8-1]

- The SPAS-12 you use during the Tet Offensive uses Dragon's Breath rounds.

- At least from their description, the "WMD" level sound suspiciously like the airfield level in MW2.

- The M202 FLASH is confirmed.

- The M1911s with "Sally" etched on them also have tally marks on them.

- They mention a co-op feature that "appears to be a successor" to zombies, which seems to me would indicate no zombies. Bummer.

- Multiplayer was ready before the campaign, so some of the campaign levels are based on the multiplayer maps.

- Regarding anachronistic guns, "'In this world, anything was possible' for these soldiers, [Treyarch head Mark] Lamia explains. All equipment requests were granted by their superiors. Cost, apparently, was no object."

- And finally, a quote from the military advisor, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey (ret) (and something I've been trying to point out for a while now) "The Historical Advisor fights to get every last bit of accuracy, but always has to concede to the need for excitement." Keirsey appears to be the military advisor for the whole franchise, not just this game or for Treyarch.

--[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Money is no object is one thing, but designing a different rifle system like you would design a James Bond car is a different thing. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

: So, basically they said those soldiers can have any gun. Come on, Treyarch ! Give them FN2000´s , Plasma Rifles and Gravity Guns !
No, really. Off course they can have special weapons. But only those which were designated before 1968. Not those which were designated 10 years after.--[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but since everything is secret, how do we know the CIA DIDN'T develop the AUG, or the SPAS-12, and cover it up by giving it to Steyr and Franchi, respectively? How can we be sure we DIDN'T capture any energy-based weapons from crashed UFOs? (Mind you, I don't work for Treyarch or owe them anything, but I have to give them credit for giving themselves such a clever out.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It seems like all these SOG's have custom-made pieces. And since Weaver rails did exist in Vietnam it would have been totally possible to make these weird AR's we keep seeing. Not saying I agree with this decision, but this is probably how Treyarch is getting away with it.

You guys are so wrong, My friend the NAVY SEAL told me something not to tell anyone else but I don't care. They are issued laser rifles just like the ones in Fallout 3 but have a disntegration setting meant for vaporizing. At least thats Treyarches logic. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Calm down. I don't think any of us know when these weapons were in their first stages of prototypes and what they looked like in the prototype stage. Prototype weapons are definitely a recurring theme in Black Ops. Since these guys are above top-secret they can have experimental weapons that are also above top-secret. In the GKnova6 files, it specifically states the AUG in-game will be a prototype version. I wouldn't be surprised if the SPAS is also experimental and the weird AR is completely custom.
:::Cool

RC planes instead of predator missiles?

== Document from viral site ==

Over at the CoD wiki I found this "document" from an viral site connected to Black Ops: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg]. It describes the AUG as "very early prototype weapon; not in production". It also mentions the [[G11]]

and also the delicious China Lake Launcher
-Double Agent M

:It would be better if they included more of these prototype weapons. I would love to see weapons like BRG-15, H&K CAWS, Ster ACR, Colt SCAMP,etc. Even better would be a underwater level with the H&K P11! After all the inclusion of such weapons in the game will be better than the monotonous selection of Cold War-rea weapons like M1911,M21,G3,FN FAL,AK-74,etc.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'll shit bricks of joy if the G11 is in there. I've wanted that gun in a Call of Duty game for as far as I remember. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

G11 eh?? im guessing its going to turn into the MP40 from WaW except in speed instead of power

== M202 FLASH ==
I made a couple of changes in this section including adding of screencaps. I rechanged it back to FLASH because everything is anachronic in this came and it can't be the more rarer XM191. Plus I added a M202 FLASH image, which is actually from Far Cry Instincts Predeator, since I could not find a single good picture of it in the web.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's not anachronism, Treyarch keeps saying that all these weapons are prototypes. I'm not sure what people aren't getting about that. I'm pretty sure every weapon we've seen in American hands so far are a prototype of some sort. I think that the FLASH is the prototype version; why can't it be?
::The reference specifically said "M202." We're not going solely by the picture, but by what was actually written by someone who either played it or watched the game be played. And since I doubt the average game journalist is an ordnance expert, he only knew because it was probably labeled "M202" in the game itself. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You know just as well as I do video games often mislabel their guns either by mistake or just to give the public who don't know much about guns an idea of what that gun is instead of confusing them with specifics. I don't argue that it's going to be labeled M202, but I guarantee you Treyarch is intending it to be the prototype XM191.

:: XM191 was M202 prototype, just for your information. --[[Special:Contributions/85.71.49.215|85.71.49.215]] 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm aware of that. But given the shall we say, unique, circumstances of the game, wouldn't it make more sense to go with what the game says, rather than what's historically correct? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes XM191 is a M202 prototype.American send to test during late 1970s in vietnam.And i see a picture of XM191 in vietnam war museum. info from http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl50-e.htm [[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]
Here is what it shoots

[[IMAGE:Treyasuckers.png]]

Wow look like a RPG7 rocket.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

==Not being able to go past vietnam?==

What is this crap I hear about treyarch LEGALLy not being able to go past vietnam in game? A comapny can do whatever the hell they want.

[[User:k9870]]

:I know, I was about to make this same post.-protoAuthor 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::From the article posted above (emphasis mine)
::"-Activision eventually convinced West and Zampella to stay with them by offering up a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to extending their contracts through to October 2011, this legally-binding document gave West and Zampella some major financial bonuses as well as a couple other hefty promises. Chiefly, it gave the two "creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future, or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio." '''In other words, Activision could not publish a Modern Warfare-branded game (or a Call of Duty game set any time later than Vietnam) without West and Zampella's full approval."'''
::West and Zampella were the two heads at IW who were fired in April. Now that they're no longer with the company, this might open the door for Treyarch's next CoD game to be Modern Warfare-esque, but there's a lot of litigation right now. The firing was way too late to affect BO, so they operated under the restrictions above. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a WWI CoD with single- and multiplayer featuring France, the UK, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, Japan, Italy and the USA. Unfortunately this would be too expensive and only few people would buy it. Thus such a CoD will never be made. Sorry for half offtopic. --[[Special:Contributions/84.181.247.180|84.181.247.180]] 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Paul_Baeumer
:I would love to play a CoD WWI game. (CoD: Great War? CoD: Over the Top?) I'd like to see them change it so you can change out your melee weapon, so instead of a knife, you can equip yourself with an e-tool, brass knuckles, or a spiked club. (Sorry to continue the off-topic.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::And to stay on topic, how would they define "distant future?" Why not a CoD game set in 2110? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Why did someone add possible weapons? ==

Someone added possible weapon prototypes like the G11 and the Pump 40mm? I am removing them tomarrow if no one says anything about why they should be left on. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: This document (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg) from the Black Ops viral site could be the reason --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:There aren't possible anymore, it has been '''confirmed''' that they will be in the game, with other sites like Call of Duty wikia including them in their weapons list.

[[Image:DOC10.jpg]] 
--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 04:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, and the Call of Duty wiki is a beacon of truth... [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The AUG and M202 have see in game trailer.[[User:Tanarmy|Tanarmy]]

== Still a little chance ==

Well, they are gonna include dedicated servers. So they apparently release modtools - So it seems like its gonna be possible change guns models, just like in CoD4. --[[Special:Contributions/88.208.103.46|88.208.103.46]] 09:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

== M16 on magazine cover ==
It should be removed for now, seeing as there's currently no evidence to support its inclusion in the game. IMFDB chronicles weapons appearing in movies, television, and video games, not on magazine covers. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Game mags are a great source of weapons, thats where half the screenshots we see come from, game informer and the such.
:Screenshots are one thing, but there's no evidence that the image is actually from the game, it might just be an illustration the magazine drew up. I would heap the image of the guy sitting cross-legged with the two .45s in there as well. It wouldn't be the first time that weapons on cover art don't actually appear in the game itself. ([[Medal of Honor: European Assault]] comes to mind.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Is it bothering you that much?
::Well, considering the site has rules against printed media, yes it does bug me. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:90% possibility that's a box-art. Don't be nerdy.

The game sure went into a lot of detail on the 1911 not to use it, and besides, what else would they have, they cant screw up history enough to throw in deegs and berettas.......oh wait, never mind, they can....

vietcong with a spas 12, damn at this rate my dream of marching into the reichstag waist firing an aa12 may come true
:That could be multiplayer screens

== SPAS 12 Folded Stock ==

All i can say is: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!
--[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Its more tacticaler and badassish to keep it folded, only noobs use a stock, not hardcore 1337 operators! (video game maker logic))
[[User:k9870]]

At least thay didn't put a goddamn XM8 in the game, if they do, i'll throw my goddamn PC outta the window, 'nuff said --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:'''nerd'''

At least the developers weren't stupid enough to put a rifle concept weapon into a game that takes place during the cold war. At least we can forgive them with the inaccurate AR-15s. And has any game developer ever fired a shotgun without a stock? It's a pain and you can slap yourself in the face if you don't brace yourself. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:I can only think of two possibilities, 1) you're firing Dragon's Breath rounds with the SPAS-12, and using it as small flamethrower, so you can get away with firing it from the hip, and 2)more importantly, WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SPAS-12 FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER WITH THE STOCK EXTENDED? The only time I ever saw it was briefly in [[Jurassic Park]]. Even that famous scene in [[Miami Vice - Season 1#Franchi SPAS-12|Miami Vice]], a show that did guns pretty well, with [[Jim Zubiena]], a professional shooter would presumably knows guns pretty well, had him firing a SPAS-12 from the hip. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A] Do you think most people even realize that thing on top is a folding stock? Yes, you, me, and everyone who's ever fired a shotgun ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgptDs_Nncw| and now this guy]) knows it's stupid to fire a shotgun without the stock extended. But I don't think the general public knows. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
:It's not stupid. You don't really have to aim at point-blank range. I'm curious how aiming down the sights of SPAS with folded stock will work.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind including the SPAS-12 in this game. It didn't exist at the time, and I don't buy the "it's supposed to be a prototype" line. If it's a prototype, why does it look exactly like the production model?(I could make the same argument about the AUG)
Most likely this is Treyarch just being lazy, or including a weapon simply because it has been popular in video games, or both. They could have included an automatic shotgun that really was used in Vietnam, the Remington 7188. It was basically a Remington 1100 with an extended tube magazine, modified to fire full auto. It was used mostly by the Navy SEALS, but I believe SOG made some use of it as well. It's a weapon, as far as I know, that has never been used in a video game. Instead we get the anachronistic SPAS-12 that has appeared in about 5 million games. If anyone is interested in the weapons SOG really did use in Vietnam, get a copy of "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster. It includes a chapter that specifically covers weapons, and there are ton of great photos. It's expensive, but worth the price.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:[[Image:MV-FSP-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Ludovici Armstrong ([[Jim Zubiena]]) fires his SPAS-12 at two drug dealers, while posing as a chauffeur.]]

== Snake ==
The guy with the AR-15 and the USMC and MACVSOG tattoo the guy looks bad ass, I'm pumped for this dude.

== .357 ==

A .357, in a tunnel? I hope the game makes it so you won't be able to hear anything for a few minutes after you fire it, so you'd have to make the choice between shooting the bad guy or just meleeing him. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:Anyone noticed reloading animation ? He just throwed out shells ( ''STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) And then moved .357 out of screen ('' STILL HOLDING FLASLIGHT IN LEFT HAND - VISIBLE'' ) and than returned .357 to screen. Fully loaded. So it means he reloads revolver in few seconds with one hand ? ...... I just hope BF:BC2:VIïetnam will be much better.

== Need the ingame footage please ==

I want to see the footage but i'm to lazy to search for it, linky please.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:[suckit.com]

== Grenade Launcher ==

Can anyone identify the grenade launcher used in-game? Here's the link to the video where you can find it. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101273 The game labels it "Grenade launcher." It looks like an M203 but that didn't exist in Vietnam...
Also, here's some breaching footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2010-call-of/101260

Yeah they did, they went into service around 1969 I think
:Can't believe I got caught without doing my research. My bad.

== SPAS-12 ==

Anyone noticed (In first gameplay video) that EVEN RUSSIANS are equipped with SPAS-12 ? Can be seen around 2:53 lying on the ground next to russian guy....
:Yeah... This is turning out to be pretty fail...

Guys who cares, achronisms don't kill a game. Does it really matter if the guns are slightly innaccurate, all that matters to me is gamplay, good and fair online and ZOMBIES!!
:Call of Duty has always been accurate in the kinds of guns they present to you in single player, with the exception of Modern Warfare 2. So I think I can speak for many fans of the franchise, it matters to us.

Again..it is a pre-release trailer...game is still 5 months from release...

== "AR" Sling ==
I'm not one to complain too much about the achronisms, but I do care when things don't make funtional sense, like that the AR's sling, which for some reason is wrapped all around the gun, is stuck UNDER THE BOLT CATCH. It's not like they don't understand it's a funtional part of the gun, cause every AR varient in every COD that's had them has the empty reload where you press the catch... Also I noticed on the non-empty reloads the AR just kinda dips out of the screen and moves a bit then comes back up loaded, you don't see the mag, same goes for the .357; THAT'S lazy... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I love reading these things to see how much constant griping there is..considering the game is still 5 months from release.

[sarcasm] You don't need to reload your guns if you are black ops, just lower them and they will be full again![/sarcasm] seriously thought, this game is REALLY start to be a dissapoint, and it haven't even been released yet --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed weapons in game have muzzle jump. MW2 and COD4 had none the guns stayed on target and took no skill to use. In this even the ar-15s rose. I like it.
:It's just cosmetic rise up, the sights will come back right on target after each shot.

Actually WAW some guns would go off target, like an mp40 or DP machine gun. More oticeable at range. Treyarch has recoil effects, which i like.

:It could just be that modern weapons were designed with a better understanding of reducing recoil. Most modern automatic weapons have straight-line stocks, which reduces recoil, as opposed to bent stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually look at mw2 ak, fal, m4, whatever, no recoil. WAW, mp40s would be shooting high after half a mag. I like recoil effects means you need more skill to shoot.

== M16 ==
Unknown [[M16]] ( Seems to be A1 ) covered with some kind of cloth or tape appeared in hands of soldier on one of BO´s artworks.

[[Image:M16-SP1.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M16A1 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:BLACKOPSM16.JPG|thumb|none|500px|M16 on cover of French Xbox 360 magazine.]]

I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: Yeah, that was nice turn. I added it on the page just because it ''HAD SOMETHING TO DO'' with game :) There arent any proofs that M16 will be featured (''unofrtunately'') --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Let's be honest fellas, it's hard to have a game that has much to do with Vietnam without having the old three pronged, triangular handguarded M16. My bet is that it will show up, armed with full auto and 20 round mags. Also, I'm pumped for the G11, that thing is gonna be epicly epic. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Bad Feeling ==

After realizing all the goofs that are popping up and watching more gameplay footage, I'm getting the feeling I got before Modern Warfare 2 released. Like they're throwing what was once a pretty legitimate game out the window for the coolness effect. And with MW2 that feeling turned out to be correct. Anyone else sensing the same thing?

Yeah, I've got the same bad feeling, except a lot sooner than I got it with MW2, maybe just cause I'm not really expecting much better after the disaster that MW2 was. Oh and COD4 is still fun ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MW2 sucked..but MW2 was IW..CoD:BO is Treyarch. Are they perfect? No..but now a days they're better than IW.

I must say i really enjoyed MW2, and, in my opinion, Infinity Ward is still better than Treyarch, oh well, games can't please everybody, can they? --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully multiplayer is a bit different, mw2 multiplayer was old when it started since it was just like cod 4, at least WAW had vehicles.

-k9870

With luck they'll fix the problems '''before''' the game ships this time. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I hope you're right but I doubt it. I've never seen a game change much of anything five months before release.

Everyone here talking shit about IW? You're a bunch of idiots. IW makes far better games. I don't know why you don't like MW2, but it's one of the best of the series so far. This game, on the other hand, looks like it'll be a disaster (as nearly all of Treyarch's iterations are).
:Fuckin right.--[[User:Pølaris|Pølaris]] 03:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hated MW2. Doesn't stop it being loaded with bugs that make the game seem like it was rushed out to meet the deadline. Now, if you're done fanboying... [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't think it's entirely fanboyish. I'm pretty sure the general consensus of CoD fans is that IW games are better than Treyarch games. IW started the franchise, and CoD games are the only games they make. Treyarch is just along for the ride. But now that IW has lost almost a third of their employees in the last month, that dynamic may change. I have a lot of hope for BO, and I think it's silly to write it off based on a few trailers and three minutes of gameplay footage. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::: My point was that MW2 was ruined by Acitvision trying to force IW to meet the due date, meaning they had to ship it with a whole range of bugs. However, some of the above poster's comments do seem to boil down to "It's gonna be shit cos it's not an IW game."[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this game looks awesome, and i dont see what the problem is

IW gets the cred since they made the modern games, which people wanted. WW2 was old that siad Treyarch couldve done just as good making mw1 and 2. They had better fire lighting, recoil effects, etc.

:Bottom line is this. IW failed to have MW2 be better than CoD: 4, and this is why they've been put on hold. Treyarch's WaW was a brilliant game, and I still love to play it to this day. Treyarch has shown more promise then IW lately, and I'm sure they won't disapoint with Black Ops, as they plan to remove and fix all the shit MW2 got wrong. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Let's replace your opinion with some fact. MW2 was better than CoD 4 based on the storyline and sales alone, without going into all the new multiplayer features. Was multiplayer a bit buggy? Yeah, for around a month. Treyarch's installments are considered, by those who have played the series, crap in comparison. WaW? That game was garbage. It was basically a recycling of levels from other games in the series that were reskinned. The game was a knockoff of CoD4 that took place in WWII.
:::I'm going to have to call BS on the better storyline in MW2. It's the first CoD game where you get to not only gun down civilians, but also kill American servicemen. That's better? Are you and your buddies playing MW2 in a cave in Kandahar? Big Red One was disappointing, but then again, it wasn't supposed to be a "real" CoD game. CoD3 did suck, I certainly won't argue that. I hated the idea of WaW at first, because WWII was so overdone, but I liked it once I actually played it. (There might be a lesson in there.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let's talk about Treyarch. Aside from their lameass 'cash-in' port of CoD4 for the wii (which was garbage), what did they do in the series? Call of Duty 3, Big Red One, World at War, and the current work in progress Black Ops. I don't know if you played any of those, but they were all terrible entries in the series. CoD3 was a gimmick game. 'Oooooh motion control and button mashing'. Big Red One was garbage, and WaW was a hack-job. What does that record suggest their next game will be like?

: Big Red One was awesome, shut up.-protoAuthor 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Treyarch couldn't have made MW1 or 2. They lack originality; every game they released was a knockoff of either IW's designs and ideas or of another developer. The only reason Treyarch is getting to make more CoD's is because IW's execs left because they were being denied their contractually obligated bonuses. --[[User:Asmkillr323|Asmkillr323]] 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, World at War is a superb game. Sure you have the god like MP40, but that's nowhere near as bad as OMA danger close noob tubes in MW2, and to anybody who's into WWII and it's weapons it's a hell of a game. It's no CoD: 4, but thank fuck it's no MW2. Treyarch shows promise, and if IW was doing Black Ops I would hold no hope at all. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

No offense but what your saying is that WAW was great in comparison. Thats not good logic at all, CoD4 is the best out of the three. No clue on BO but I have a feeling that since they wanted to justify cool guns that are anchoristic with that they are prototypes is just half-assed which may relate to the rest of the game. Also have you seen the reload animations?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:When WaW was first announced, I was appalled. I couldn't believe they were staying in WWII, even after CoD4 skipped ahead to modern day. Looking back though, the fact that it's a WWII game is the only flaw I can think of. (Although, yes, it's a big one.) It restricted the plot, and WWII has been done to death. It was otherwise a pretty good game. I really liked the co-op campaign missions, the vehicle missions were well done, the voice acting was superb, and Zombies takes the game to a whole new level. Aside from the setting, is CoD4 really that much better? Is it time to give Treyarch the benefit of the doubt? --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree with all of your points chinaman, and you're right, CoD 4 wasn't really all that better. Besides the modern warfare setting, it lacked many of the cool features and such that WaW introduced, and while everyone including me loves it, it wasn't overly better than WaW. I always applauded Treyarch for making WaW not so noob friendly, something IW did massively with MW2. Now the guys at Arch have been watching people complain everywhere about the shit in MW2, and so they know what to do to fix it. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

== Goofs and screw-ups ==
Alright no offense but SHUT UP!!! You guys are complaining about the anachroistic guns in it but it's supposed to be that way. The freaking name is BLACK-OPS which means no one knows about it. What they are doing are saying what Cpt. Price said: History is full of lies. So, what they're saying is that this is not what they thought really happened but they are using their imagination to come with these historical ideas that fall in to the game. But like I said everything in it is supposed to TOP SECRET, so it's going to be anachroistic. But that's how it's supposed to be. It's TOP SECRET so none of us would even know about it.

and P.S. For all butt-holes who said MW2 sucks, Opinions are like butt-holes every body's got one, and nobody wants to hear the other one. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah. You act like 12-years old. But we all know you are 10 years old.
::For your information I am actually 12.

Look up mw2 bad spawns on youtube and you'll see how its flawed. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::I take it that you don't want fans of the COD series to actually question the developers for making questionable (or stupid) weapons choices for the sake of a compelling narrative. Unfortunately, that only works if we didn't have already have lots of knowledge of the 1960s-1970s era of covert operations from the military and numerous books, which only makes the anachronisms more glaring to anyone who isn't 12 years old.Just like movie watchers, people playing games set in a particular historical era have a certain set of expectations of what ought to be present and what shouldn't. To dismiss all those concerns with a "TOP SECRET" excuse is ridiculous, since Call of Duty 1-3 all managed to be interesting without adding things that didn't exist in the same timeframe. Cursing at people because they disagree doesn't make your defence of Treyarch seem anything more than juvenile. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I just wanted everybody to shut up about saying crap about the guns. So they maybe think that a AUG without a foregrip looks stupid, I think it looks cool. The graphics look good and it looks realistic. I am 12 so I don't care about anachrosism, but I know a heck of alot about guns and Call of Duty so yeah, I was a little mad but because alot of you guys are like in your thirties they are targeting this for people in the younger phase and are not expecting people to go Hey! The AR-15 wasn't introduced then and neither was the Grenade Launcher. I don't think Treyarch are expecting a Riot of AUG foregrip lovers to burn down their studio but come on guys, seriously. Do you have to take this that seriously, your calling me juvenile while your sitting in your chair going hey that trigger guard is rounde then it can't be a M9 so it has be a 92SB therefore they lied! I'm going to kill them! etc. etc. so hey try to be a little compassionate and maybe think about going outside your mom's basement. Ha Ha just joking. (not sarcasm) So what i'm saying is can you not be so depndive on every little detail. Would you like to make a Call of Duty game. Just please voice your honest opinions and not go on about gun mixups because it's really not about the guns it's more about the plot and story. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you people are taking these things too seriously. Since cod 4, these games are like action movies, rather than historical war role-playing type shit. Yes the anachronisms are disappointing, but I'm not really bothered by it and they were done for the sake of making the game cooler (and in my opinion any game set in Vietnam AND including a spas-12 is badass). If you want realism, than check out the new Medal of Honor. If you want Hollywood type action, buy cod games, because thats the direction the franchise is going in, which isnt a bad thing.

:Alright kiddies, let's sit down and have a nice list of what's wrong with Modern Warfare 2.
-One Man Army
-Danger Close M203s
-Commando
-The Spawn system
-Deathstreaks (especially Painkiller)
-Overpowered and unbalanced guns (ACR, FAMAS, UMP)
-Overpriced map packs
-non-dedicated servers, which leads to lag and host migration up you yin yang
-the OMA/Danger Close noob tube combo
-boosters galore
-10 Prestige hack lobbies
-The F2000 is a pile of garbage

So all said and done, that's a pretty big list of whats wrong with the game. You're free to disagree, but let it be known anyone claiming noob tubes are legit will be lynched. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The new Metal of Honor is just trying to cash in on the whole Modern Warfare craze we got going. Modern Warfare is the new WWII game of this generation. And because this IS a site that points out specific weapons, whether or not it should exist in the time period is our jobs on this site. Those of us who do take this site serious has an obligation to point out the holes and inconsistencies. That's what we do here. Call it bitching or whining, but that's what this site is solely for, nitpicking, pointing out obvious holes when we see guns in a movie, game, etc. We're looked up all sorts of history involving the AR-15 and just saying it's "Black ops" doesn't mean they defy the laws of historical consistency. In some of the Indiana Jones movies that takes place before WWII, we do point out MP40s and 98Ks should not exist as a fact. Even black ops of today would use the latest technology, not weapons that haven't been field tested or even made yet. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

: You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. Also, I've seen Beta footage and Medal of Honor just looks a lot like Bad Company 2. And to be honest, I could care less if the AUG or AR-15 or what have you is an anachronism in this game, as long as we're not talking lasers I'm fine. We're here to point out weapons in film, give pictures and descriptions of them, and talk about them, not bitch that a gun being in a game set 2 days before it was produced makes it a failure [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

:: Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its ''8 years''. --[[User:Werc|Werc]] 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out achronistic guns is part of what we do here, that said, for me it won't kill the game, unless there's a Modern Warfare 2-like pile of other stuff wrong with it too. Oh and yes the Russians & Vietnamese wouldn't use SPAS-12s but you're forgetting the only guns they've REALLY intended to show off so far are the AUG, SPAS-12, AK-47, M202, Python, and Crossbow, that's only what, six? I think they only picked these few guns to go in the trailers, and then reveal more later, so maybe the guns will be more where they should in the final version... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid we talk about firearm mistakes in TV/Movies/Video Games on a website DEDICATED TO DISCUSSING FIREARMS IN TV/MOVIES/VIDEOGAMES! I will continue to make comments on what, in my opinion, are idiotic firearm choices for this game. If anyone disagrees, feel free to reply, but don't tell me to shut up. Some of the comments above just prove my theory that weapons, such as the SPAS-12, were simply included because they are popular in video games, with Treyarch using the whole "prototype" B.S. as justification for their presence.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, how DARE they try to give players what they want?! You'd think they were in this to make money or something. What a bunch of whores! --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really? So the only way for this game to make money is to include a SPAS-12? Is there that much demand for a SPAS-12 it has to be inluded to make gamers happy? Would the game be a financial failure if it wasn't there, and weapons more appropriate to the time period were included instead?--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You said it yourself, it's what players want. And like you also said, it's minor. Games are made for the general public, not gun dorks like us. As a gun dork, I'm a bit bothered, but as a gamer, I'm thrilled that I can light people on fire with a shotgun. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (gun dork and gamer)
:::: Does the success of the game depend that much on specific weapons that appear in it? You said yourself that as long as a game is fun, accurate/inaccurate depictions of weapons doesn't matter that much. If that's the case, weapons more correct to the time period can be included, and the game will still be a success ''as long as it's fun''. And I highly doubt Treyarch polled gamers and asked them what weapons they wanted to see in Black Ops. I think they were just acting on their ''perception'' of what weapons are popular in video games. So I don't know if I can say this is a case of "what players want", more a case of Treyarch saying "we think we know what players want". This is just a theory I came up with as to why certain weapons were included, I don't have any idea if it's true(although some comments from other posts seem to confirm it). For all I know, Treyarch is just being lazy and it's easier for them to include the well known weapons rather than do real research. At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::"At any rate, I can't see the inclusion/exclusion of specific weapons making or breaking a game." My thoughts exactly. --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, those that find it stupid that we are pointing out the anachronisms in this game should really just go to the treyarch forums, not post on a website dedicated to firearm identification. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, if those anachronistic weapons supposed to be '''early''' prototypes then they at least could make it look '''different''' from production models! That would be much more believable. Tryesuckarch is just being f-ing lazy. I don't mind flat-top AR, but they could make it not look like a modern one. And also if there is no simple M16A1 then it's a total fck-up in the Vietnam themed game.
::If they made it look different5 from the final gun, you guys would be even more pissed! You'd be like "How can they call that a M16A1! Look at it it looks nothing like the original!" Plus. how could Treynot-suckarch know what they would like? You guys wouldn't be pissed if this was a modern warfare game. In fact I bet that Treyarch probably wanted to do that but they couldn't(breathes deeply)you know what this is my last comment. I'm done arguing with all the stupid people on this site. If you have anything else to say you can take it up with me on my talk page. [[User:Drjuki|Drjuki]] 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You don't know what you're talking about. Photos or drawings of the prototypes can easily be found on the internet. A drawing of the AUG prototype is on the World Guns page, and the prototype SPAS-12(along with a photo of the SPAS-11) is shown on the SPAS-12 webpage: [http://spas12.com/spas12not.htm] And if Treyarch clearly states a weapon is supposed to represent a prototype and it actually looks like the prototype, no one is going to complain.--[[User:Phillb36|Phillb36]] 00:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:Are these mistakes any worse than some of MW2s fuck ups? Like the L86 with a made up drum magazine and iron sights that wouldn't be usable as it has a straight stock, the AUG cosmetically having a 30 round mag when it says 42? The MP5K having a rail system only seen on an airsoft gun in real life and so on. Let's remember Black Ops isn't set only in 1968, and so they have a bit of play when it comes to weapons. The M16 is confirmed (I have a friend doing beta testing) and is Vietnam styled. Now if anyone wants to instantly write off the game because it has a few anachronisms and shit in it, then your missing the point. So what if your using an AUG in 1968? It's not like lasers in WWI, and it's still fun to do. Don't focus on the hate, try and just enjoy it for what it is, a video game. If you want reality, go join the army and head off to Iraq or something, cause in video game land, reality will be broken. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]
:So you're trying to justify Treyarch fuckups comparing it to MW2? Fuckup is fuckup

One, I tottaly agree. Two, did your friend say if there is an M14?

:Yes, the M14 should be in there. Also, I hardly see mild anachronisms as "fuck ups" in a game that pretty much goes on alternate reality anyways. Treyarch has created a game all about the operations we don't know about, the cover ups, and the spec ops weaponry we don't see for years, so having an AUG earlier then it's commercial release can be forgiven. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]\

::Treyarch has the right to depict an alternate Cold War for all they desire, but as long as they try to play it off as the historical "truth" that no one knows about while maintaining all sorts of obvious (and IMO not minor at all) anachronisms, they are only leaving themselves open to criticism. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They aren't trying to play it off as historical truth, they're trying to go with an alternate truth, which makes perfect sense. Also, if I hear another person commenting on how rails are anachronistic, I'm going to snap. It's fucking rails on a gun in a video game, get over it. Black Ops will be an awesome game, and despite these possible anachronisms, I'll be gladly killing Russians in 1968 with my AUG thank you [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I don't think I'm going to get this game. I'm getting a vibe that it's filled with silly crap much like Modern Warfail 2. I'll be playing the next Medal of Honor instead. -Frank T

:Medal of Honor looks like Bad Company 2 with Taliban, so that's the game I won't be getting. Treyarch impressed me with World at War, and they're aiming to please this time, removing and modifying all the bullshit Modern Warfare 2 bestowed on us. From deathstreaks to Commando, they're out to fix it all! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

I never really got that mindset "It's BFBC2 but slightly different so I'm not getting it". Well, if you don't like Bad Company 2 to begin with that's fine, but there's more of a difference between Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor than between COD4 and World At War, most of the difference was the setting so it seemed like a bigger difference, but the core gameplay was very close, and they were made by two DIFFERENT companys while BFBC2 and MOH are made by the SAME ONE. I'm not saying anything bad about them, I like the first three and the MOH Beta. And yes, Modern Warfare 2 failed in two ways: First, it was WAY too noob-friendly, like, before it came out I would've never thought it possible for a game to be that noob-friendly, and second, it traded realism for coolness in pretty much every way, while COD4, the game they'd JUST MADE, had a believable story, weapons that were almost perfect in terms of appearance and who used them, and the only real nooby stratagy was the M16 Red Dot, but oh well, there was almost only that one. I know Treyarch has said they're trying to get rid of the cheap MW2 stuff, and that's good, but I'm really not liking the direction this is going, picking the guns because they're cool and not because they make sense, even a little bit, the exploding crossbow bolts, how almost every weapon we've identified so far is either achronistic or has something wrong with it (go look), the Hind A with tandam seating, and when you get in you go through the long cool animation of getting in and starting up, but then it takes off in 2 seconds flat, and the lazy, lazy reloads... I'm not saying it's going to suck, I'm saying my hopes aren't high, sure it'll be better than MW2, but that's not saying much. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Arguably Black Ops has issues, but don't forget that E3 footage comes months before the final product. So what if the Hind has tandem seating, does that make it any less cool to blast VC with it? So what if the reload isn't uber detailed, does that detract from you shooting people? So what if there's minor anachronisms, isn't this both a video game and an alternate reality? I'll agree the crossbow is kind of odd, but this game should be nowhere near as noob friendly as the god awful MW2. Modern Warfare 2 was built on the idea of helping bad players, but it only resulted in much rage for good players such as myself. Call of Duty 4 was made to break the mold on FPs games of the time, and it did and still does kick ass. MW2 was built to top it, and instead of that, they gave us an over dramatic, noob friendly game that overall makes me just want to buy a copy of CoD 4 again. And on MOH, I've seen some footage, and now I actually like it, sure it looks BC2 like, but thats no biggy, and overall that looks ready to rock too! [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Okay, sorry, that came off as too bad against Black Ops, I know it's months away from coming out and no, the Hind's seating isn't really a problem, I was just pointing out that it was wrong, same with a lot of the stuff we've seen so far. My point was there's a lot of incorrect things in the game, not neccecarily game-breaking, just pointing out that COD4 and WAW were better in that regard, though so far the game overall looks pretty good :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 05:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:To be really honest, it won't matter if there's minor issues and anachronisms, cause as long as Black Ops isn't as noob friendly and shitty as MW2, I'll be fine and dandy [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see MW2 as "noob friendly", just as balanced. It tried too hard to make no gun any better than another. It also felt like cod4, like the core gameplay mechanics were all old when you started playing.

-k9870

:Face it dude, MW2 basically reeks of noob friendliness. You have deathstreaks, solely designed to help shitty players, noob tubes which when coupled with OMA and danger close are the noobs cannon of choice. You have the ACR and FAMAS, both of which are overpowered, then you get stuff like the UMP which at close range does more damage then an M4 Carbine. Not to mentionthe marathon lightweight commando set up used by knife fags so they can knife you from 12 feet away. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

And the overpowered Harriers, that killed everyone all the time and you could have 2 up at once, and they always beat the helos in fights, and Chopper Gunner, and Tactical Insertions, allowing people to boost really easily for the Nuke, that ended the game, and Slight Of Hand Pro that let everyone quickscope, yeah the list keeps going... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always find a stinger to be good against harriers and because you can have 2 on you, most of the time, you can take even 2 of them out. Not Gunner choppers are a pain to take down [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Chopper gunners are a pain, AC-130s are worse. Not only can they not be hit by bullets or tubes or anything of that sort, but they have TWO sets of flares that can deploy without any delay. Tact inserts mixed with cold blooded and good old FFA is great for boosting, luckily now Sandy Ravage deals some booster justice (hell, even I serve justice to them now). Either way though, MW2 was clearly IW's attempt to top CoD: 4, which was a game built to revolutionize FPS games. MW2 was built to be playable by even the noobiest kids, over the top, reference movies every two seconds, and overall be a fairly shitty game. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The problem with the Harriers is they're way too good... unless you just pull out a stinger and then they're dead, which is a little too extreme both ways. The reason the helicopter was so much better in COD4 was because there were no guided rockets, you couldn't shoot the rotor (so you couldn't just hipfire the thing to death), and UAV Jammer didn't help you against it, it killed you anyway, not to mention it never seems to manage to hit you in MW2. What I hate is hearing "Helicopter Inbound", then seeing it shot down in literally 5 seconds... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death streaks were only like 10 seconds long and didnt bother me, no guns were eoverpowered, there all balanced, too much if you ask me. C130s were easy to hide from and rare to see and i downed tons of harries with stingers. The noob tube didnt bother me, i used a m16 with m203 and iron sights as my primary weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot The problem was cheap tactics, like camping spawn points and getting your friends to camp with you in free for all so you could stab them and boost your way to a nuke.

-k9870

The only streak thats ten seconds long is painkiller, and it still sucks. The ACR has no recoil and can outshoot sniper rifles, so can the FAMAS. AC-130s are easy to hide from on SOME maps, but if you get spawn trapped outside, your screwed. The fact you use a noob tube on your primary gun choice sickens me, because ANYONE who uses them, unless to get the shotgun unlocked or in a tactical, non spam way is a complete noob and should be banned for using such a cheap weapon. Knife noobs are easy to shoot at times, but if they get within ten feet, commando is your demise. MW2 is a shit game, end of story, Black Ops is doing everything to solve the problems it caused, amen. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

The m203 is useful to launch through windows and take out campers, and i use iron sights so might as well have an attachment. I dont use the m203 as my primary, but have it on my primary. And the ACR has low power at range taking on snipers. I countersniper with my m16 though, love irons, they have no sway like a scope. I hate snipers the most, there like socially acceptable campers. Its funny to lay out some noob who tries to quickscope though. It seems like no matter what you get called a noob though, m4 noob, noob tuber, shotgun noob, dual wield noob, knife noob....it seems everyoned thinks if yo dont use whaty they do your a noob, and c-130s dont bother me, there rare, people need 13 kills to get them. I hated when i tried to play free for all with some friends in a party and people are just boosting to nukes each round and cheating there asses off

[[user:k9870]]

agreed. it is always considered noobing. Snipers are annoying. it takes no skill at all to snipe. however there are worse things in MW2 then Snipers. for example- the people who camp in buildings like Wasteland or Scrapyard. "noob tubers" really arent annoying at all anyway. aggravating maybe, but if someone hits you with a M203 its your fault anyway. you should have been more alert. [[Special:Contributions/71.194.219.9|71.194.219.9]] 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

People always camped hallways and alleys and just shot anyone coming around the corner. Easy to just poke in and launch 40 mil at them. Besides, the thing has an aring distance, you need to arc it at range and reload was slow. Balanced.\

-k9870

:Face it, the M203 is a noob piece of shit. the combo of an M203 with Danger Close and OMA makes you a mini artillery battery. Also, how are you supposed to dodge a tube when people are shooting them cross map to your spawn? Nothing says pro like getting hit by a 40mm grenade shot hundreds of feet over buildings into your face. The M203 has no place in MW2, and I'd be one to have it removed. If retards can't use guns well, don't give them bullshit to help them, let them suck and they'll quit the game. When I pull my FAL out, I feel like a pro, knowing everyone else has the overpowered ACR and FAMAS and the tubes out, all ready to be scrubs, while I'm using something that's balanced and yet awesome. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]

Well said, though I wish the G3 was still in, and the fact that the ACR does a little less damage, like 1 bullet, maybe two different, makes no difference when there's absolutly no recoil, they still can't do anything by the time you kill them across the map from one huge sustained burst... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you all playing hardcore or something? And i have no people launching 203s around problem, you only get 2. And i could care less about harriers and 130s, you need a lot of kills to get them. There is a call of duty cultuure to nae some guns as oaky and some as cheap. I dont give a shit personally though. i just play. No matter what somebody will bitch about your gear.

I remember back when everyone hated p90s, that thing had no range or power and overall sucked.

You only get two M203s if your not using scavenger or the more common One Man Army. I literally see two or three people on my team per game using that stupid backpack, it's complete bullshit. The ACR may not do high damage, but it's high rate of fire and zero recoil means you can full auto the damn thing at any range. I think retards who dare to say the noob tube is a legit way to play should be banned from PSN or XBL and never allowed on any Call of Duty again. It's called a first person shooter, not first person grenade launchers. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:I wasn't aware that we can't SHOOT grenade launchers. I better go tell the guys at Activision/IW/Treyarch. -Chris_Hun7er 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is more that games are good and balenced when everything has a place, if people start using snipers at close range and beating shotguns (that's more of a Halo thing, but the snipers quickscope and the shotguns are rather terrible), or shooting 40mm rounds at any range for any reason, it's dumb. The launchers in BFBC2 are well balenced, because they have a purpose and they fill it, and nothing else. The assault rifles in MW2 have a purpose, fill it, and then beat SMGs and shotguns at close range, and half the time snipers at long range. And the Javelin, not that I see it too much, is good against tanks, except, there aren't any, there's infantry and helicopters. A game works when things have a purpose and fill that purpose, but not anything else's purpose, and that's half of what's screwed up in MW2. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Excactly Alex. Bad company 2 had 40mms that had to virtually land on the person to kill them, but with Danger Close an MW2 noob tube will kill people even if they're up to fifteen feet away from the landing. To be honest, I think noob tubes should just be plain removed from Black Ops, and the tube fanboys can suck it while us normal players use our guns. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]