The Truth About Call Of Duty Black Ops?

by **[PDE]PaulKersey** Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:35 am

the person who originally posted this is "ryryelectro"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why the Game was Released Broken. All Must Read.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After talking to someone who worked as a database administrator for Activision, I have gotten some insight into why Black Ops was released with game-breaking problems...

What you must know is that Treyarch MUST follow Activision's deadlines, as long as Treyarch is working under Activision. So remember this: 3arch MUST meet Activision's deadlines at all costs.

Background:
What happened with ex-IW? ex-IW consistently clashed with Activison on this issue of deadlines. ex-IW consistently couldn't meet the deadlines Activision has set for them (which was one of the main reasons Activison pitted against them in court, can't talk any more about this). While ex-IW did tell Activision many times how their deadlines are impossible, Activision was adamant and wouldn't give in (it's all about getting it released before the Christmas season = money money money). IW therefore was stuck with very short deadlines to release a game that Activision expects to be record-breaking.
This is why MW2:
1) Shared many similarities and didn't have much improvement over MW1 (in fact, what improvement?)
2) Didn't have the time to add Dedicated Server support (which they planned to)
3) Had many game-breaking glitches on release day.

Now Treyarch:
As their first somewhat-modern shooter, Treyarch only had 2 years to develop Black Ops. Keep in mind: Treyarch is a smaller, and less experienced developer than ex-IW. Along with being their first attempt at a somewhat-modern shooter, Treyarch planned to add many new features to CoD that MW2 didn't have over MW1. With that being said, Treyarch had successfully accomplished most of the features they wanted to add to Black Ops. Near release day, PC & PS3 testers at Treyarch did note issues of how the game did not run well on some PC & PS3 systems (360 as well, but not as severe). Treyarch knew that these issues couldn't be fixed in time for the release day. When they approached Activision and told them that there are major issues with the PC & PS3 platform, Activsion was still adamant about meeting the deadline, so Treyarch had no choice but to submit to Activision their game proposal in its current, broken state. Activison's only advice: just release patches later on to fix it. Please note that Treyarch has no say in the publishing of the game.

On November 9, 2010, Black Ops was released in a broken state.

In 3-4 months, Treyarch has released 6-7 patches, and will continue releasing patches to support the PC community. And in a few weeks, mod tools. I hope you all understand what is going on with CoD. The 2-year-deadline is simply unrealistic. Taking into consideration that Treyarch is not even as big as ex-IW, and also less experienced, they are doing a great, great job at what they do. That is why I have since grown respect for the developer.

The Money Machine Is Beginning to Learn:
Activison themselves have also realised (finally) that this 2-year deadline is unrealistic in the long term. Therefore they have addressed this issue by hiring a 3rd developer: Sledgehammer Games and plan to have them work with the current developers until they are comfortable with making the next CoD game themselves. Once through, each developer will have 1 more year to develop their games (total of 3 years). Which in my opinion, still isn't enough.

Extra Knowledge You Guys Should Understand:
Games as massive as CoD or Battlefield take several years to develop. The only way CoD can release a game in 2 years is by utilizing the same lightly modified engine (which IS modified with every release, just so you know) is by cutting back on a lot of new additions. Much of the game is reskinned rather than re-developed. The same DirectX version is still ultilized, making the "carry over" of many aspects of the game possible. Many of the perks are reused, so they don't have to be re-thought out. Balance of the game cannot be fully tested and thought out either.

Taking into consideration most of the greatest games (that are fully developed without reuse) took 7-10 years to develop, I really respect Treyarch for their effort in Black Ops. While I am still annoyed by some minor stutter here and there in Black Ops, I am satisfied that at least they've tried hard and are still trying to support the PC community today.

All I ask is to stop flaming Treyarch like there's no tomorrow, especially when they're trying day after day to support this game. If there is anybody to blame about the broken state on release day, it is Activison.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Please learn from this idiot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by homestyle
OP, do you secretly work at Treyarch? You try to make Treyarch sound like the good guy that was bullied by the big bad Activision.

Going in, Treyarch knew the deadline for shipping the game was right before christmas season 2010. As a game developer, you want to sell as many copies as possible. The best time for this to happen is holiday season. Regardless of what Activision says, Treyarch management wants to release during holiday season. If they (treyarch management) don't, they are idiots

Knowing the deadline or not, 2-years is simply and utterly not enough to develop a bug-free game, especially when you want to add new features.
Most importantly, a developer (3arc) does NOT make money from game sales. Publisher (Activision) pays developers X amount of dollars to produce a game. Publisher reaps game sale profits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original link: