• 1 Post
  • 111 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • Some of them are related. Some of them aren’t.

    Black Ops and Modern Warfare are generally two separate series- the Modern Warfare games are all related.

    Black Ops is a lot more complicated. Black Ops 2 is a direct sequel to Black Ops 1. Technically Black Ops 1 is sort of a sequel to World At War, as well. They share a major character, but it’s kind of a minor thing and you won’t be missing a ton.

    Black Ops 3 has basically nothing to do with the rest- it takes place in 2065 and basically the only thing that links it to the previous games is a throwaway line related to a previous villain and some text logs.

    Black Ops 4 didn’t have a singleplayer campaign.

    Black Ops 5 is Black Ops: Cold War, it is related to 1 & 2 but it’s less of a direct continuation and more just the same characters are involved iirc.

    Black Ops 6 follows up Cold War, but again is just the same characters.

    Personally, I’d suggest doing World At War, Black Ops 1, Black Ops 2, Cold War, and then Black Ops 6 for the ‘full experience.’ If you wanna circle back around and do Black Ops 3, you can do that pretty much whenever because as I said it’s unrelated. You can drop World At War if it doesn’t interest you without any real issues. As I said, it just sets up a single character. Dropping any of the others you might actually be confused on plot and characters at points, idk.

    Modern Warfare is a lot simpler. Just do them in order.


  • If you mean singleplayer campaigns: as far back as you can stomach the graphics of.

    If you actually want good campaigns, Black Ops 1 is fuckin legendary. World At War was also great. As is Modern Warfare (2007) and Modern Warfare 2(2009). Modern Warfare 3 (2011) was also good. Black Ops 2 was good. I wouldn’t bother with any further Black Ops games- one of them doesn’t even have a campaign iirc.

    For the much much newer titles, Modern Warfare (2019) was good. Modern Warfare (2022) was also solid. Modern Warfare 3 is ‘last years title’ being referred to in the OP.

    None of these are narrative masterpieces exactly- the closest is probably the Black Ops games. With that said, they’re very much ‘action movie’ videogames. Tons of crazy set pieces, unique segments, and then the cutscenes that usually tie together a reasonable enough plot to be interesting.

    If you mean multiplayer: honestly just jump into Black Ops 6. None of the older titles are likely to be a great experience at this point. Or just spend your time on a better game lol


  • I’m just looking at the PCGamer article- I don’t have a Statista account and I’m guessing the only source for that is the PCGamer article anyways because the numbers are the exact same.

    There’s ~46,000 response that reported income there, and 22217 of them reported making less than $10,000. Another 9179 said less than $25000. I don’t think this is going to be indicative of gamers in general based off of just that.

    Across the board the most common reasons were ‘demo game’, which would likely end up resulting in a sale anyways, and ‘can’t afford’ which would likely not result in a sale regardless of the ability to pirate.

    But you’re right that I could absolutely see an exec reading that article, looking at a chart and losing his mind.










  • Yeah, sure. I’m not saying the epilogue was too long, just the game overall.

    Consider it: did they really need every scene in the game? Are you honestly gonna tell me that every. single. mission. was plot critical or would’ve made the game lesser in any significant way?

    There was a lot they could’ve trimmed down or removed.

    Which, to clarify, it’s not like I think the length is a great crime or significantly detracts from the game. I just feel like it would’ve been better if it was a bit shorter. I’m not trying to compare it to something like Assassin’s Creed Odyssey where it’s a 100+ hour game and 70hrs of it is narratively irrelevant.