Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops: Difference between revisions
Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops: Difference between revisions - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops: Difference between revisions
[[Image:MP5G3.JPG|thumb|none|400px|Un-identified gun '''1''' : Possibly [[MP5]] or [[G3]].]]
[[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.]]
[[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]]-[[User:SargeOverkill]]
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]]
[[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)
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)
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.... --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.--SB2296 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This game seems to have a lot of rendering issues when it comes to the guns 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. --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. --Werc 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. We are a gun site and we pay attention to details. 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--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. 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.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. --AdAstra2009 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Moved from main page--AdAstra2009 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
AR-10
Another unknown M16 family gun. But this one seems more like Armalite AR-10 A4
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 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.Tanarmy
Its uselles to keep AR-10 discussion here. We all know its that ankward AR-15 or XM177 or whatever.
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. 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 :)--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. --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.--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 --67.181.114.114 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)JanG
Wait...
Upcoming CoD,what what what?!
--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 --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? 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? 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". 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. 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. 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. Excalibur01 04:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. Spas and AUG were in tons of other games. --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. 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. --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"?--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. --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.--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 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. --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. -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? 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. -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? 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.--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 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.--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:
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. 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. --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 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.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.
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 ?--Werc 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Treyarch is legally obligated to keep the timeline from going beyond Vietnam. [1] 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. --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. --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 :/ --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. --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. 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. --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. --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. --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. --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. --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. --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? 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. --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? --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. --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. --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.--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. 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. --Werc 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Ever heard of the Mosin Nagant M44 carbine or the finnish retooled M38?--FIVETWOSEVEN 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
M16 and XM177
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 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? 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. --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.--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.Tanarmy
And Spas-12 was in vietnam ? It may not be Valmet, but it fairly sure isnt RPK. Or another Treyarch modeller fail ? --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? --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. - Kenny99 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Launching an SR-71 from an aircraft carrier? Is that even possible? O_o 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? --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)--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.
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? 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 ? --Werc 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
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. 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! 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.) --funkychinaman 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
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.) --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. 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. --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.
Well, it doesnt look cool enough. Expect it with scope, silencer, thousands of rails and plastic stock. --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. 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. 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 [2], 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. --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. --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. [3]--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.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. [4]
- 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.
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. 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.--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.) --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. --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: [5]. 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.--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. 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.--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. --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. --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? --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.htmTanarmy
Here is what it shoots
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. --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. --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.) --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? --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. --FIVETWOSEVEN 02:22, 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.
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. --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. 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.) --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. 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!!!!
--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 --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. 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, 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. [6] 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 (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. --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.--Phillb36 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
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. --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.--FIVETWOSEVEN 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
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... 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 --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. --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.
I moved it from the main page because like we discussed earlier, it's just a magazine cover with nothing to back it up. --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) --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. 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 ;) 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? --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. 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).
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... 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. --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."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. 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.) --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. --Asmkillr323 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Your timeline is off. Development of BO started well before the recent upheaval at IW. --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. 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?--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? --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. 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. 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. --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. --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. 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. 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. Excalibur01 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
You, Excalibur, look like one of those very few inteligent people in this discussion. --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 M14fanboy
Those guns arent 2 days befor prouction. Its 8 years. --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... 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.--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! --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?--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. --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.--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. --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. --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. 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: [7] 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.--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. 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. --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 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! 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. 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! 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 :) 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 M14fanboy
Exactly, but we still do need to point them out though. ;) 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. 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... 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 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. 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... 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. 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
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. 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. 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... 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. 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. Alex T Snow 06:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.steyr-aug.com/240.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NEW-STEYR-AUG-right.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100601175649/callofduty/images/3/3d/Doc10.jpg){kind=link}
