15 replies to this topic

[IMG News]

Aspyr Media has announced that Activision Publishing’s Call of Duty: Black Ops will be coming to the Mac. Developed originally by award-winning studio Treyarch and brought to the Mac by Aspyr Media, Call of Duty: Black Ops will be available on Macs worldwide in digital and boxed formats this fall.

“Aspyr has worked with the biggest brands in the entertainment world, but the launch of the original Call of Duty: Black Ops for Apple fans is our biggest in 17 years. Treyarch has created a masterpiece and we are thrilled to launch later this year,” said Ted Staloch, Aspyr’s Executive Vice President.

Call of Duty: Black Ops takes players to conflicts across the globe as elite black operations forces fight in the deniable operations and secret wars that occurred under the veil of the Cold War. Featuring an adrenaline-pumping single-player campaign, out-of-this-world Zombies co-operative game mode, and an incredibly deep multiplayer experience, Call of Duty: Black Ops delivers the complete Call of Duty experience with amazing enhanced graphics, streaming texture technology, and superior lighting effects for the most immersive and cinematic action.

Features:

• The hallmark intensity of Call of Duty returns with a cinematically intense single-player campaign that takes players deep behind enemy lines as an elite Black Ops soldier engaging in covert warfare, classified operations, and explosive conflicts across the globe.
  
• ZOMBIES! For the first time on the Mac, fight to survive in one of the most thrilling and critically acclaimed co-op experiences in gaming.
  
• Expanding on the series' ultimate multiplayer experience, Call of Duty: Black Ops takes competitive play to new heights. Expect the fast-paced, action-packed combat you love with more features than ever before:
  • All new Killstreaks including Napalm Strikes, the remote controlled explosive device (RC Car), and controllable helicopters.
    
  • Customize the look of your soldiers with a variety of face paints, gun camos, and equipment options.
    
  • Jump into Combat Training and hone your tactics against A.I. bots in both Free-For-All and Team Deathmatch game modes.
• First Strike! Escalation! Annihilation! Rezurrection! All four packs of Call of Duty: Black Ops DLC are scheduled to arrive on the Mac later this year. More details to be released soon.

System requirements for the game are not yet available. Learn more at the links below.

Return to Full Article - InsideMacGames News

[UmarOMC1]

Fine, I'm game!

[ikir]

I will buy it  

[Wumpus]

I'll review it!

[DaveyJJ]

I'll try to find a way to skip the intro movie and the dozens of company logos that will show up before the game loads!

[Janichsan]

I'll ignore it since CoD represents everything that is wrong with the shooter genre nowadays.

[The Liberator]

DaveyJJ, on 03 July 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'll try to find a way to skip the intro movie and the dozens of company logos that will show up before the game loads!

I believe if you can find the right files that correspond with the company logo spash screens, you can replace them nothing files of the same name…

Lib.

[Wumpus]

The Liberator, on 03 July 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

I believe if you can find the right files that correspond with the company logo spash screens, you can replace them nothing files of the same name…

Lib.

Pretty sure deleting the logo/splash files also works, has in some games for me anyway.

[Djevlen]

So we have a release date: 27th of September

Some details:
Will be on Steam, but no steamplay
1 DLC is included - "First strike content pack", One more will be available for purchase - "Rezurrection Content Pack"($14.99) and  there will be 2 additional DLCs later sold as a bundle.
Many macs will struggle with the requirements i think, but its a pretty good looking game imo.
Mac-to-mac MP only!, but if you buy it on the MAS you´ll still be able to play with your friends who bought it here, on steam etc.
There will be a mac app store only version being released a little later that will support game center, same situation as with Empire: Total War

Just thought I´d throw out some details I find interesting, for more info check: http://blog.gameagen...tails-released/


Price: $49.99

[Wumpus]

There should be new news posts about this tomorrow, so yeah. No need to keep posting here.

[Janichsan]

Janichsan, on 03 July 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

I'll ignore it since CoD represents everything that is wrong with the shooter genre nowadays.

Just for Wumpus, an explanation why I think CoD represents everything that is wrong with the shooter genre nowadays (...and actually about big parts of the gaming industry).

1. It favours spectacle to actual player interactivity
Since CoD 1, the single player campaigns of these games are basically simple meandering tubes, leading the player from set piece to set piece, and from scripted scene to scripted scene. Turn a corner, there's an ambush. Run further, take out the machine gunner. Pick up the missile, shoot down that helicopter that crashes right in front of you. Turn the next corner, CRASH!, a tank breaks through a wall right in front of you. Run on, BOOM!, the Eiffel Tower falls in front of your feet. And then die in an explosion of a nuclear bomb.

The player's only role is to trigger the scripted events. Whether he shoots or not, in part makes no difference at all. He reduced to an extra in a movie with limited interactivity.

At least from CoD 4 on, the games of that series have become the gaming equivalents of a Michael Bay movie. Don't think. Watch beautiful big explosions. At least Michael Bay movies usually take themselves too serious, unlike CoD...

2. It's cynical
How to create publicity and give the player the tingly feeling of a guilty pleasure? Put in a controversial level or "interactive" scene. Let's have a level where you can kill civilians in a terrorist attack! Let's torture that guy by putting broken glass in his mouth and hitting him in the face! Are these scenes any necessary? Do they add anything to the game? Do they make the games any deeper?

3. It's unimaginative
CoD never appears to break ground or take a risk. The settings are whatever is the most fashionable at the time of release (WWII, "modern" combat, near future for the upcoming CoD BlOps 2). Independent of the setting, the games always follow the same basic structure in single player campaign. Multiplayer modes are usually taken from other games (most non-deathmatch modes can be tracked back to CounterStrike, Day of Defeat and — in the case of the Zombie mode — to Left 4 Dead).

4. It's designed to get you hooked
Why has CoD's multiplayer an experience point system? To cater to your lower instincts. It's the same simple reward cycle that many MMORPGs use: Do something, get a "reward" (even if it does nothing and is purely cosmetic), feel good about that, continue doing that thing.

5. It's Activision's way to milk customers
Yearly installments of the series, DLC consisting of a handful of multiplayer levels for $20, premium subscription based services — Activision wants your money... badly.

[Wumpus]

Will reply more later, just wanted to say I don't disagree with what you said.

Wanted to post this, thought it was cool and relevant. http://www.computera...yer-think-again

Looks like they are working to improve things in the MP modes. Sounds promising.

[Frigidman]

*shrug* I just don't play it. No sense throwing hate, if someone likes it, fine, they like it. Not my cup of tea, and thats all that matters to me.

[Wumpus]

If only everyone shared your sensibilities

[Frost]

I just hate it mostly because of what the single player campaigns have turned into. It had its flaws, but it used to be one of my favorite series. I loved COD 1, COD 2 was good. Even COD3 was mostly okay. COD 4 I thought was great, and was the most fun I'd had since COD 1. COD 5 was a mixed bag; the American section in the Pacific was magnificent, but the Russian section was a blow-by-blow ripoff of the first game to the point I had deja vu every 5 minutes. But its excellent coop made it a joy to play and replay endlessly with friends.

Then MW2 hit and I swore off Infinity Ward. Then Black Ops hit and I swore off Activision. The series went from an often well-done attempt to put you in the shoes of a combat soldier to a nauseatingly ridiculous explosionfest unbelievable POS. And while I thought the MP was great in COD4, it got old after about 10,000 kills, and the MP in the follow-up games has just been the same warmed over crap over and over, with improvements ranging from "meh" to "whatever."

With MW3 and the "Elite" subscription crap and all that idiocy, I just gave up on Call of Duty.

No idea how the new Medal of Honor will do, but the last one, I thought, was a worthy successor to what Call of Duty used to be.

[Wumpus]

Janichsan, on 22 September 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Just for Wumpus, an explanation why I think CoD represents everything that is wrong with the shooter genre nowadays (...and actually about big parts of the gaming industry).

Okay! I took forever to reply to this, but here it is

Janichsan, on 22 September 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

1. It favours spectacle to actual player interactivity
Since CoD 1, the single player campaigns of these games are basically simple meandering tubes, leading the player from set piece to set piece, and from scripted scene to scripted scene. Turn a corner, there's an ambush. Run further, take out the machine gunner. Pick up the missile, shoot down that helicopter that crashes right in front of you. Turn the next corner, CRASH!, a tank breaks through a wall right in front of you. Run on, BOOM!, the Eiffel Tower falls in front of your feet. And then die in an explosion of a nuclear bomb.

The player's only role is to trigger the scripted events. Whether he shoots or not, in part makes no difference at all. He reduced to an extra in a movie with limited interactivity.

At least from CoD 4 on, the games of that series have become the gaming equivalents of a Michael Bay movie. Don't think. Watch beautiful big explosions. At least Michael Bay movies usually take themselves too serious, unlike CoD...

I don't disagree with this. Though its not a problem unique to CoD, but one that pervades a lot of the shooter industry. It would be really cool if they innovated on the formula for sure. Nonetheless its still entertaining, even if its dumb entertainment. I definitely prefer "smarter" shooters like Bioshock, Human Revolution etc. But I'm not averse to the occasional spectacle romp either. I think this ultimately comes down to preference. Most people get this game for the MP, not the campaign. But it doesn't mean they should ignore making a good campaign either.

Janichsan, on 22 September 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

2. It's cynical
How to create publicity and give the player the tingly feeling of a guilty pleasure? Put in a controversial level or "interactive" scene. Let's have a level where you can kill civilians in a terrorist attack! Let's torture that guy by putting broken glass in his mouth and hitting him in the face! Are these scenes necessary? Do they add anything to the game? Do they make the games any deeper?

Do they add anything? I think that depends on the perspective and experience of the player. I don't think they take away from the game, or make them shallow. I think when done wrong they add a forced element of "grit" or "shock." See Homefronts "shooting a kid" thing for a very forced element of this. I  think it actually worked well in MW2. Though it was definitely way over-talked about and discussed to point where everyone knew about it, even if you hadn't played the game. And I think that ruins it. It did seem to start a trend of "put shocking moment in game just because" but MW2 did it well.

As for the Black Ops glass scene, yeah, I actually found it kind of entertaining. But that's because I enjoy virtual violence and the likes of Jack Baur in 24. It wasn't some kind of highlight of the game, or "omg" point, it was just part of the story for me. I didn't stop and think "oh this is stupid and pointless" because my character was trying to make the guy talk. I'd say its more thin the MW2 scene, but has its place in the context of the scene.

Janichsan, on 22 September 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

3. It's unimaginative
CoD never appears to break ground or take a risk. The settings are whatever is the most fashionable at the time of release (WWII, "modern" combat, near future for the upcoming CoD BlOps 2). Independent of the setting, the games always follow the same basic structure in single player campaign. Multiplayer modes are usually taken from other games (most non-deathmatch modes can be tracked back to CounterStrike, Day of Defeat and — in the case of the Zombie mode — to Left 4 Dead).

Also don't disagree…but like they say, if it aint broke, don't fix it. The game's are massively popular because they *are* fun and well designed. Sure, lots of people don't like it and moan about the game, but there's plenty of people who enjoy it the way it is. And as long as those people exist, they will keep getting made that way. This leads back to my "gamers choice of entertainment" points I made elsewhere.

You can't really accuse CoD of stealing or borrowing game modes, as EVERY shooter borrows stuff from whatever came before it. You can accuse every game of "borrowing" from Doom or Quake because they have death match in them, but that would be stupid. The modes exist because they are fun. For me there's enough variety and I hop around from game mode to game mode to keep things fresh for myself.

The zombie mode is actually pulled from Killing Floor in terms of inspiration and structure. It has very little in common with Left 4 Dead, but your point is of course, its taken from another game, and packaged in a similar form. I don't disagree with this, but I'm not going to argue against it either, because..once again, its fun. And its not a straight copy, it adds some of its own elements.

The reason I defend the game is because I enjoy it. And while it doesn't innovate, it does what it does very well and is damn fun. Would I like them to innovate? Of course. Black Ops 2 is actually changing a lot up in the Multiplayer which definitely shakes up the formula. The story mode is also adding branching story lines and choices, which add some more depth and actual replayability to the campaign. I think that's important as it alleviates to some extent the "interactive movie" criticism of the other games which isn't wrong.  I doubt we'll ever see some kind of total reinvention of the series, because why would they? Just make another game at that point.

Janichsan, on 22 September 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

4. It's designed to get you hooked
Why has CoD's multiplayer an experience point system? To cater to your lower instincts. It's the same simple reward cycle that many MMORPGs use: Do something, get a "reward" (even if it does nothing and is purely cosmetic), feel good about that, continue doing that thing.

Haha. Okay, I had to laugh at this one. EVERY game wants you to keep playing it, and puts something in to make you play again. Whether its achievements, or hidden points, secrets, difficulty levels…or in the case of RPG's, loot. I don't think CoD is very "hooking" or "addictive" in the least. Especially when compared to the likes of Diablo 3 or Torchlight 2 which drip-feed you a constant stream of loot and stat boosting items. Also see: Borderlands, or any RPG. People love to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, and unlock stuff, or be rewarded for the time they put in. So why shouldn't they be?

Its not a bad thing if a game puts in a system that you can either use to keep playing, or replay it and get something out of it. It extends the life of the game and the time you can put into it. And if you don't like whatever that system is? No problem. Play the game once and move on.

If I had to criticize anything it would be the Prestige system in CoD, but I'm guilty of falling for it either way. I'm currently Prestige 4. You unlock the same stuff over and over, but its still kind of fun in a dumb way. You don't have to though, there's no advantage to it. You can just  get to rank 50 the first time and keep all your unlocked stuff. So in the end its player choice.

Janichsan, on 22 September 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

5. It's Activision's way to milk customers
Yearly installments of the series, DLC consisting of a handful of multiplayer levels for $20, premium subscription based services — Activision wants your money... badly.

All true..though the map packs are $15. Maybe they are $20 in Europe? I do think they are overpriced, and $10 would be fair for 5 maps. So far I've found the extra maps in Black Ops to be fun though.

This is kind of a tricky point. Because I both agree and disagree in various areas. In the sense that, tons of publishers/devs pump out yearly installments and DLC, and DLC is something that's pervasive in the entire industry now, whether its console or PC. On one hand I think DLC can add some really cool stuff, for example in Mass Effect 2, DLC like "Lair of The Shadow Broker" is just brilliant, and adds an excellent side adventure. And I don't think it had to be in the main game in the first place. I do think its stupid to charge for little stuff, like a few weapons or pieces of armor. Fortunately CoD doesn't do that.

I don't think yearly installments or DLC are inherently evil, as some of them turn out well and are quality. But a lot of them turn out to be same-y or "what? this is DLC?" effect. So I guess you take the good with the bad.

Every dev wants your money. Whether its AAA studios or the one man indie. You can't fault them for it, just some have a way of seeming blatantly greedy. But on the same hand, I'd say blame the gamer, not the publisher. Sure, they put the stuff out there, but its the gamers snapping it up that keeps it coming. So, whose fault is that in the end?

My ending thoughts are, there's certainly issues and problems with the CoD series, but there's a lot of fun in them too. I'm hoping Black Ops 2 can prove to be more varied and interesting and help prove that things can be done a little different. If you hate the series its definitely not going to change for your mind, but for long time fans or those who already have Black Ops and MW3, it should be better.

Maybe after this they will go for a more radical change, with the inevitable Modern Warfare 4, or Black Ops 3. Time will tell.