Dan Ryckert, Associate Editor at Game Informer, had this to say about Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified  via twitter

 

"Well, I just beat Black Ops: Declassified's main story mode (if you can call it that) in 42 minutes."— Dan Ryckert (@DanRyckert) November 13, 2012

 

"Holding off on my Black Ops: Declassified review until I get an official word from Activision regarding the servers. It's unplayable."— Dan Ryckert (@DanRyckert) November 14, 2012

 

So its $1+ per minute if you don't have wifi, or just can't get the MP running.

Thought this deserved a separate thread . Sony is bundling the game to showcase the Vita after all.

they made it that way so you can play and finish the game at the demo booth and not bother getting a vita.

(inb4 i get banned again, I am just kidding)

Console gaming on the go? Graphics say yes. Gameplay says no.

To me, especially after seeing AC:L reviews compared to AC3, what the Vita stands for is a lie.

...and here is why these games never help Sony on the handheld. They pretend to offer the home console on the go, yet its obviously a low-end variant with a similar name. Vita simply cannot ever grow with these types of games. People won't buy it.

As for the multiplayer... it has to be wifi, so not sure what the 3G talk is even about. But for a portable console, it seems like the solo missions should be the primary focus, not the wifi/online based multiplayer.

So with this and AC:Liberation reviews coming out, can we all agree Vita has no real chance at long-term survival? I mean hell, when the Wii has a better COD game...

superchunk said: ...and here is why these games never help Sony on the handheld. They pretend to offer the home console on the go, yet its obviously a low-end variant with a similar name. Vita simply cannot ever grow with these types of games. People won't buy it. As for the multiplayer... it has to be wifi, so not sure what the 3G talk is even about. But for a portable console, it seems like the solo missions should be the primary focus, not the wifi/online based multiplayer. So with this and AC:Liberation reviews coming out, can we all agree Vita has no real chance at long-term survival? I mean hell, when the Wii has a better COD game...

A better question is: Can you finally admit that the Vita would have failed, even if it was a smartphone?

This game sure isn't worth $50 but it actually isn't that bad. If it had the name "generic FPS vita" reviews would be closer to a 6 or 7.

Maybe next year (in the alternate reality where Vita still exists in 2013) they can get Gameloft to make COD Vita instead of Nihilistic or n-Stigate or n-Competent or whatever they're calling themselves now. Modern Combat is pretty rad!

I played several games of the multiplayer last night. I did have to try three times to get into a game since it kept locking up and then kicking me back to the multiplayer start screen. But once I got in, it was fun...CoD on the Vita. Maps are small, but I didnt think they were too small. Gameply feels like CoD. Animations look like CoD. Graphics are pretty good, you dont notice the graphics while running and shooting. But if I stop to look around...they are decent nothing spectacular, but do the job very well considering it is on a handheld. I have a feeling they could be better though. All in all, fun game so far, but I only put in about 1 hour...$50 fun though? I am not sure about that.

RolStoppable said: superchunk said: ...and here is why these games never help Sony on the handheld. They pretend to offer the home console on the go, yet its obviously a low-end variant with a similar name. Vita simply cannot ever grow with these types of games. People won't buy it. As for the multiplayer... it has to be wifi, so not sure what the 3G talk is even about. But for a portable console, it seems like the solo missions should be the primary focus, not the wifi/online based multiplayer. So with this and AC:Liberation reviews coming out, can we all agree Vita has no real chance at long-term survival? I mean hell, when the Wii has a better COD game... A better question is: Can you finally admit that the Vita would have failed, even if it was a smartphone?

no. A smartphone would have been a easy call for most people in Sony's demographic. Vita has had other good game options, just not to quantify a $250 stand-alone gaming console.

superchunk said: RolStoppable said: superchunk said: ...and here is why these games never help Sony on the handheld. They pretend to offer the home console on the go, yet its obviously a low-end variant with a similar name. Vita simply cannot ever grow with these types of games. People won't buy it. As for the multiplayer... it has to be wifi, so not sure what the 3G talk is even about. But for a portable console, it seems like the solo missions should be the primary focus, not the wifi/online based multiplayer. So with this and AC:Liberation reviews coming out, can we all agree Vita has no real chance at long-term survival? I mean hell, when the Wii has a better COD game... A better question is: Can you finally admit that the Vita would have failed, even if it was a smartphone? no. A smartphone would have been a easy call for most people in Sony's demographic. Vita has had other good game options, just not to quantify a $250 stand-alone gaming console.

I agree that Vita should of been a smartphone, in fact I think that instead of releasing the xperia play and the vita, Sony should have just put their efforts into one device, however unless they executed it perfectly I do not think it would have fared much better. It is just very difficult to get any sort of appreciable marketshare in the smartphone market. (Samsung and Apple own it)