First off-screen gameplay of COD: Black Ops Declassified

So the first off-screen footage of Black Ops Declassified appeared on Youtube. Unfortunately, video is not too long and not the best quality, but we take what we get

NewMonday4045d ago

Hard to make anything of it

r214045d ago

Yeah, cant see a darn thing. Why the hell is the camera guy moving around instead of focusing ON the game :L

Raccoon4045d ago

It's crazy how the tittle is 2 weeks away and all we have is one crappy trailer and this ^ to visually enforce our chances of purchasing this game smh. Nihilistic can only go up from this point on and since we expect the worst from them I think this is their only chance to prove us wrong... Underdog

MattyG4045d ago

Sitting on the crapper at 730 and BOOM. That music. On the bright side it got the job done.

Sanquine904045d ago

It looks fast and solid i hope that it looks good!

jetpacksheep4045d ago

Less than 10 seconds actual visible footage? why? if you have it in your hands just show the game.

GreenRanger4045d ago

Looks like the guy who recorded this had a head fetish at 0:20.

mafiahajeri4043d ago

Hahaha yeah and @ 28 the character in the game seems to be doing something to himself ...

Show all comments (15)

Was Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified Really That Bad?

PP: Was Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified really that bad on the PS Vita?

Read Full Story >>
cluclap850d ago

In comparison to its console counterparts at the time? Yes. Yes it was. In comparison to DS versions? It was god like

Amplitude850d ago (Edited 850d ago )

I got tons of fun out of it.

Killzone was better, yeah. Heck even Resistance online was better. But CoD Resistance and Modern Combat and such were all fun to change it up a bit when you've grinded too many hours into Killzone.

If i had to review them, yeah, all those games would get a low af score except Killzone. But i had fun plowing through the Resistance campaign and playing online and goofing off with CoD online while travelling. Not everything has to be a masterpiece but they were all fun enough for what they were lol


Why The PS Vita Ultimately Failed (And How The Switch Did It Right)

How is a system so loved within its community considered a commercial failure, and how did the Nintendo Switch take its idea and run with it?

Read Full Story >>
MadLad1030d ago

Highly overpriced proprietary memory, and Sony showing it little support, themselves?

VersusDMC1030d ago

Agree with the support but the overpriced memory was always overblown. The switch is an handheld charging 60 for games instead of 40 as they always had before...yet that cost hike is fine.

darthv721030d ago

As someone with both a Vita and PSP GO, it really made me curious why Sony felt the need to make a dedicated memory card when they already had one that was more than adequet. The M2 format (that the Go uses) is virtually the exact same size and shape as the vita... just flipped. It would have made things so much easier for people to buy into it, especially if they were able to insert their existing memory card with their purchased games on it.

I really like the vita, I also think they had a huge missed opportunity with not having TV out. I like to pop my Go onto the TV dock and play some games now and then (doing the switch thing before the switch). Doing that with a vita would have been awesome, especially with full DS4 support.

persona4chie1030d ago

The only thing is the Switch isn’t a handheld, it’s a hybrid of both. So there isn’t really a “cost hike” sure you get an overall lower quality or “handheld” quality when playing portably, but you do get better quality and performance when playing in “console mode”

And yes I know people are gonna say “bUt thE sWitCh iS wEAk” and compared to the PS4 and XOne absolutely, but it’s still console quality games. And the quality is much higher than on any handheld before.

The Vita was a great system, but people’s expectations were too high. It was definitely a capable system, but not as capable as people thought it would be. I don’t remember if Sony said this, but it was said that the Vita would be able to deliver PS3 quality games and it ultimately couldn’t.

And yes the memory cards were definitely an issue. There are countless complaints about it. Nobody wanted to pay $120 for a 32gb memory card https://www.gamespot.com/ar...

Neonridr1030d ago

I mean compare the scope and size of a 3DS game (Link Between Worlds) and compare that to Breath of the Wild and tell me that the additional price doesn't warrant itself.

DarkZane1030d ago

The overpriced memory was not overblown, it's the only reason why the Vita failed.

You had 4, 8, 16 and 32GB cards, but anything below 32GB was too small and a 32GB was $100 at launch, which was way too expensive. A SD card of the same size was like $25.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1030d ago
ApocalypseShadow1030d ago

$249 was a great price for the OG PSP. PS Vita launching at $249 years later for what it did was a steal compared to PSP. Nintendo dropped their price because it made 3DS seem expensive against it for inferior hardware. It worked.

Yeah. The cards were expensive. But look at the flip side. Many gamers stole games on PSP by downloading them from online. Just like they did with PS1 and PS2 games. And we see how DRM gets cut through in software so fast that that wouldn't have been enough. SD Card would have guaranteed theft immediately. They tried something different. Didn't work out.

The games were coming. Problem was, gamers weren't supporting it like they were with PS4. Gamers either complained the games were expensive or that the games were hand me downs or lesser than console like Uncharted. And with mobile phones powerful enough to play games that looked just as good as portable consoles for cheap or free with ads, something had to give. Sony even gave gamers the ability to stream PS4 games at home or anywhere in the world. Even that wasn't enough for some.

Nintendo has ruled the mobile market for decades. It's why they can weather the storm of challengers and mobile. And with new customers being born all the time, Nintendo rides its same properties like Disneyland. But new in house IPs are almost non existent.

The only thing Switch did was have no opposition. No competitor. Microsoft was too cowardly to try ever and Sony gave it a shot. TWICE. Now, if we flip the article around, we can ask how Sony had been successful with PS4 and PS5, while Nintendo failed at dedicated home consoles and ran to mobile.

persona4chie1030d ago (Edited 1030d ago )

Except they didn’t run to mobile? They’ve always had “mobile” devices, and they’ve proved in the past, gimmick or not that they can have a hugely successful system.

They literally just took the best part of the Wii U and made it independent. The Switch is a home console as well as a handheld, not just a handheld but people like that as an added option.

And while Nintendo has definitely had a few poor selling home consoles they haven’t failed by any means, “mobile console” or not it’s still successful.

Plus money is money. It doesn’t really matter if Nintendo is making it with a home console or a handheld. Just like Sony saw the handheld wasn’t viable so they dropped it to focus more on PS4.

Neonridr1030d ago

they failed once, with the Wii U... so you could say that but you'd be reaching Apocalypse.

rdgneoz31030d ago

@persona4chie "And while Nintendo has definitely had a few poor selling home consoles they haven’t failed by any means"

What would you call the WiiU? Nintendo ditched that pretty fast and went to a new console after a few years. WiiU (came out Nov 2012) had 13.56 million sales as of December 31, 2019. Switch has around 80 million and it came out just under 4 years ago.

That said, they learned from their utter failure with the WiiU and came out with the Switch.

ApocalypseShadow1030d ago (Edited 1030d ago )

Nintendo has failed more than once. Home and portable consoles. But name a portable console competitor to the Switch? I'll wait...still waiting...still waiting...

What some fail to mention, is that Nintendo has/had no direct competition to Switch. Zero. They also fail to see that Nintendo has been the dominant portable console maker since Gameboy. Not one portable has won against Nintendo since then. Targeting Vita is foolish as the market leader has always been Nintendo.

As for home consoles, Nintendo basically abandoned the formula of building a dedicated home console. They built a hybrid that's really a portable that replaced 3DS and happens to connect to a TV. But we all know its use and tech specs is mobile. Trying to spin that it's a home console is ridiculous when it can't even play certain games on home consoles. That's why it's streaming certain games. Why? It's a mobile platform. That just happens to have no competition. And Nintendo has been riding on underpowered products while selling the same properties without new IPs for years. At least we can say with Sony, they make new franchises EVERY GENERATION. Something Nintendo doesn't do.

Summary: Nintendo has always been portable market leader for years. And now, they have no competition. Not even from 3DS. So, of course Switch is going to sell unopposed. Vita would have been destined to be second fiddle to Nintendo with portables regardless. Even if Sony would have stuck with Vita.