Shooter99
12-31-2011, 02:11 PM
Well, Modern Warfare 3 is out and I still haven’t made the BO vs MW2 thread I said I’d make. So even though I haven’t played MW3 yet, I thought it’d be good if I made the thread before the year ends.
When it comes to graphics, the choice is easy to make – MW2. Black Ops had better water effects, the vegetation looked more natural and it also featured gore (I didn’t like it, but it’s something MW2 hasn’t got – so I thought I should mention it). But apart from these three accolades, the textures of BO were awful. I mean, Call of Duty games aren’t known for offering high resolution textures, but Black Ops is probably the worst-looking game in the franchise. Landscapes, characters, objects… all these textures… suck ass. And what about cinematic effects? MW2 has the gold medal for stunning cut-scenes and effects, as opposed to Black Ops’ crappy sparks and explosions, as well as boring slow-mo cutscenes of characters performing unspectacular stunts. Visually, not only that MW2 is the better one, but BO is the worst looking Call of Duty game.
As for the storyline, it’s not as easy to explain, because MW2 appears to be better at first, but if you pay a bit more attention to it, you’ll notice that it doesn’t make any sense.
On one hand, Treyarch tried to copy Infinity Ward by bringing in characters form their previous game, i.e. Reznov is their Captain Price, and Dimitri Petrenko was something like Soap. Also, they saw that a protagonist dies in MW2 and therefore they got Woods and Petrenko killed. Another thing that sucked about Black Ops’ storyline, was that **** about Kennedy. On the “Revelations” mission you get to hear someone saying “Oswald compromised!”, but at the end of the game you see Mason in a photograph taken the day of the assassination, hinting you that Mason did it. I know it was done in order to start debates about who killed JFK, but an event such as the death of a good president shouldn’t be exploited like that. Also, Black Ops didn’t have an original story. It was Modern Warfare 2 + old action movies.
But then again, MW2 didn’t make much sense either. While it was original, there were a lot of stupid things about it. First of all, didn’t anyone notice Makarov and his gang going on that elevator in the first place (and where did they hide their guns and kevlar)? And when Makarov said “Remember, no Russian”, was Allen so stupid not to feel a bit suspicious about it? And did he go to that airport with his birth certificate or something – how did Russian authorities identify him as an American so fast? Aren’t there any surveillance cameras in Russian airports? And do Russians really posses the IQ of a brick to think that Allen killed so many people all by himself? Fun fact: By 2015, Russia will develop over a billion super fast soldiers who could take over the entire world in under a week. And the moral of MW2’s story: Don’t trust generals with mustache and patriotic behavior.
I mean, it sounds so stupid when you put it this way, but it was actually a fun game to play and as weird as it sounds, I actually like its story.
The storyline of both games is pretty much a tie. While MW2 is based on betrayal and conspiracy, BO is based on saving the world in a classic heroic way. So I’d have to go with Black Ops on the story, because the intel points give you texts you can read, because of the “Maverick” code (a nice touch btw) and the deeper story (yes, it isn’t very deep, but you can check out the terminal and find all the intel if you’re into it, which will uncover some pretty interesting info about the game).
The singleplayer gameplay is my favourite thing about all Call of Duty games. It’s fun, action-packed and intense and there are no Call of Duty games that don’t offer a good singleplayer experience. But when it comes to comparing BO and MW2, the answer is MW2. It had much more amazing cutscenes, it went a lot smoother than BO – in terms that MW2 wasn’t as buggy, there wasn’t any voice stuttering and the overall controls felt more responsive. The answer for which one had a better sp gameplay – Modern Warfare 2.
Multiplayerwise, I’d go with Black Ops – the maps were better and a lot more patches were released to fix the bugs in it. I don’t like the BO and MW2 mp, but if I have to choose, I’d say Black Ops.
Co-op: MW2 had unique spec ops and BO had zombies. Now these co-ops are something that I really liked about both games. My guess would be the spec-ops of MW2 for their difficulty. They were actually hard and there was an objective you were trying to accomplish – opposed to the mindless slaughter of overpowered zombies in BO.
And to my surprise, it turns out that MW2 is the better game. I always thought that BO was my preferred game, but anyway, I know that this will probably be the least popular thread at the forum, but hey: I DID IT! I said I’d do it, and 6 hours before New Year I did it. I’ll start writing at the forum again, I have the time for it now.
And Happy New Year.
When it comes to graphics, the choice is easy to make – MW2. Black Ops had better water effects, the vegetation looked more natural and it also featured gore (I didn’t like it, but it’s something MW2 hasn’t got – so I thought I should mention it). But apart from these three accolades, the textures of BO were awful. I mean, Call of Duty games aren’t known for offering high resolution textures, but Black Ops is probably the worst-looking game in the franchise. Landscapes, characters, objects… all these textures… suck ass. And what about cinematic effects? MW2 has the gold medal for stunning cut-scenes and effects, as opposed to Black Ops’ crappy sparks and explosions, as well as boring slow-mo cutscenes of characters performing unspectacular stunts. Visually, not only that MW2 is the better one, but BO is the worst looking Call of Duty game.
As for the storyline, it’s not as easy to explain, because MW2 appears to be better at first, but if you pay a bit more attention to it, you’ll notice that it doesn’t make any sense.
On one hand, Treyarch tried to copy Infinity Ward by bringing in characters form their previous game, i.e. Reznov is their Captain Price, and Dimitri Petrenko was something like Soap. Also, they saw that a protagonist dies in MW2 and therefore they got Woods and Petrenko killed. Another thing that sucked about Black Ops’ storyline, was that **** about Kennedy. On the “Revelations” mission you get to hear someone saying “Oswald compromised!”, but at the end of the game you see Mason in a photograph taken the day of the assassination, hinting you that Mason did it. I know it was done in order to start debates about who killed JFK, but an event such as the death of a good president shouldn’t be exploited like that. Also, Black Ops didn’t have an original story. It was Modern Warfare 2 + old action movies.
But then again, MW2 didn’t make much sense either. While it was original, there were a lot of stupid things about it. First of all, didn’t anyone notice Makarov and his gang going on that elevator in the first place (and where did they hide their guns and kevlar)? And when Makarov said “Remember, no Russian”, was Allen so stupid not to feel a bit suspicious about it? And did he go to that airport with his birth certificate or something – how did Russian authorities identify him as an American so fast? Aren’t there any surveillance cameras in Russian airports? And do Russians really posses the IQ of a brick to think that Allen killed so many people all by himself? Fun fact: By 2015, Russia will develop over a billion super fast soldiers who could take over the entire world in under a week. And the moral of MW2’s story: Don’t trust generals with mustache and patriotic behavior.
I mean, it sounds so stupid when you put it this way, but it was actually a fun game to play and as weird as it sounds, I actually like its story.
The storyline of both games is pretty much a tie. While MW2 is based on betrayal and conspiracy, BO is based on saving the world in a classic heroic way. So I’d have to go with Black Ops on the story, because the intel points give you texts you can read, because of the “Maverick” code (a nice touch btw) and the deeper story (yes, it isn’t very deep, but you can check out the terminal and find all the intel if you’re into it, which will uncover some pretty interesting info about the game).
The singleplayer gameplay is my favourite thing about all Call of Duty games. It’s fun, action-packed and intense and there are no Call of Duty games that don’t offer a good singleplayer experience. But when it comes to comparing BO and MW2, the answer is MW2. It had much more amazing cutscenes, it went a lot smoother than BO – in terms that MW2 wasn’t as buggy, there wasn’t any voice stuttering and the overall controls felt more responsive. The answer for which one had a better sp gameplay – Modern Warfare 2.
Multiplayerwise, I’d go with Black Ops – the maps were better and a lot more patches were released to fix the bugs in it. I don’t like the BO and MW2 mp, but if I have to choose, I’d say Black Ops.
Co-op: MW2 had unique spec ops and BO had zombies. Now these co-ops are something that I really liked about both games. My guess would be the spec-ops of MW2 for their difficulty. They were actually hard and there was an objective you were trying to accomplish – opposed to the mindless slaughter of overpowered zombies in BO.
And to my surprise, it turns out that MW2 is the better game. I always thought that BO was my preferred game, but anyway, I know that this will probably be the least popular thread at the forum, but hey: I DID IT! I said I’d do it, and 6 hours before New Year I did it. I’ll start writing at the forum again, I have the time for it now.
And Happy New Year.