Black Ops II: it looks surprisingly good

[Kadoodle]

And I never thought I would say that. I thought the first black ops was a stupid piece of shit. I had the same opinion about MW3. Black Ops' only redeeming value was its zombie mode.

Now I look at the new Black Ops gameplay, and I see things have changed: first, it takes place in the future, with futuristic guns that don't actually exist, save a few prototypes we have now. The setpieces are actually really great this time around, and the addition of choice in what route you take through the levels is something COD has never done before. Overall, it looked less like generic COD and a little more like Killzone.

Also, the new HUD looks cool. They're expanding Zombies too. It actually looks as if they've addressed all sorts of issues I had with other COD games.

Maybe I'm just losing it.

Thoughts?

 

[Aerosteam]

The gameplay isn't that different but at least they're doing something new with the weapons. But it's still a bit unsurprising since it's the future and they kind of have to have new equipment.

Flames... Incoming...

 

[Terminate421]

Its the trailers, you won't feel any difference until we actually play it.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I've always preferred recent Treyarch over Recent infinity ward because of the changes they do to make the games stand out. Still not buying, though. (Oliver North, 4 hour campaign, and shit multiplayer).

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Nope, not being fooled by Fail Treyarch again. Black Ops was a giant steaming fucking pile of shit, and I won't put up with their horrendous hit detection again. Modern Warfare 2 for life.

 

[nu1mlock]

What's the difference between all the game they keep spitting out?

Really, I have no idea, someone please explain it to me. I've got MW3, played 30 minutes of it and wanted to remove it from my Steam Library. Didn't care about a refund, just wanted it gone from my list.

 

[Sennune]

I think Black Ops 2 is going to be a big step forward for the Call of Duty franchise as a whole. While it's true, there hasn't been a lot of innovation in the series since 4, for me the alternation between IW and Treyarch has been keeping keeping the series palatable. Though, this time Treyarch seems to be pushing the boundaries of the series. Now you can pick which path you want to take at certain points in missions. There are certain points where the game changes from being linear, putting you in a position to use a little situational awareness, and making sure failure alters the story. I don't know how deep that goes, but I'm glad to see these additions are coming to the franchise.

The setting is pretty interesting, while the futuristic side looks interesting, I'm actually more intrigued by the '80s part of the Cold War. That has been vacant throughout gaming and I want to see Treyarch's interpretation of the time.

Treyarch scored with zombies, but I'm glad they're trying to innovate on singleplayer.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Black Ops was the first game where I felt they were trying something with the story. It was also my introduction to Zombie mode, which kicked ass. And the Multiplayer was scores above even MW3.

I'm going into Black Ops 2 pretty confediant they know what they're doing base on all the pre-release stuff. I'm in the same boat as you.

 

[Hazy992]

At least they're trying something a bit different (for COD anyway), but I'm not getting suckered in this time. I'll give this a rent first.

I'm also not liking that it's looking even more jingoistic than before and it basically seems like right wing propaganda.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

I think the trailers look good, but then again it's only the trailers, so..

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

What's the difference between all the game they keep spitting out?

Really, I have no idea, someone please explain it to me.

I'll take a stab at that, I guess.

So... we can mostly agree that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was pretty decent, right? It brought the mainstream FPS genre out of the 1940's, had pretty solid gameplay even by today's standards, and had a story that was sort of like a Tom Clancy novel as directed by James Cameron with a Harry Gregson-Williams soundtrack to boot. With each game that's come out since then in the series, it seems like they (Infinity Ward in particular, but Treyarch is certainly guilty of it too) have been treading further and further away from the Tom Clancy roots and straying closer and closer to Michael Bay territory. With each new game the goal seems to be setting up the story to do nothing more than provide bigger set pieces than the last. The result is a shorter game that boils down to nothing more than a chain of set pieces loosely strung together by giant fiery explosions, the corpses of dead player characters, and a huge amount of thinly veiled xenophobia.

So I guess that's my answer. Each game ups the stakes over the last one, and that's more or less what differentiates them. You want to see bigger and more ridiculously outlandish set pieces in your Call of Duty game, you get whichever one has the biggest number at the end until you reach the point where you're suspending so much disbelief that you actually begin to feel physical pain (from all the facepalming, most likely). Story and gameplay only really exist to introduce various types of brown-skinned or Russian stereotypes (that you'll likely gun down without remorse) and string you along to the next big fiery explosion fest.

But who really plays CoD for the story, right? It's all about the MULTIPLAYER, man! In that case, you're paying $60 each year for new set of maps and some new weapon skins for weapons that are functionally more or less the same as the previous game anyway (see: MW2 FAMAS vs. MW3 Type-95).

And note that I actually like the CoD games. Sometimes I need to just come home from work, turn off my brain for a while, and smile like an idiot at all the pretty explosions.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

sorry messed up with this post. please delete

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Some things they are doing with this game are promising but other than that i really dislike the setting. It looks like the Michael Bay version of Ghost Reckon future soldier and i hope this isn`t the new trend. Fighting drones in a not so distant future isn`t what i want to play but i´ll give it a rent and take a look, maybe it`s fun.

Btw i´m starting to get curious how many times they are trying to use their old engine for the next games. It looks outdated since the last three games and i doubt that the new lightning and other cosmetics will change this.

And note that I actually like the CoD games. Sometimes I need to just come home from work, turn off my brain for a while, and smile like an idiot at all the pretty explosions.

Such well written heartwarming words i just had to quote them. This is how i feel about this franchise too. One of my favorite boring saturday evening rents (and yes i even own a couple of them).

 

[Erttheking]

It looks like it CAN be good, but my hopes aren't that high. My brother will probably buy it though, so I'll get a chance to check it out anyway. Then again I still don't get the people who say COD 4 = good COD 6 = bad, they all seem kinda boring and bland to me, but then again maybe I just don't "get it". I've been accused of that a lot on this site.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

COD games always do.

Me? I probably won't be buying it. Why? Because they didn't put me in charge of multiplayer design, and I'm starting to think I'm the only ************ capable of making it not terrible.

Maybe if they ditch the support package, go back to the old map design and quit this proficiencies nonsense I'll get it. Maybe.

I think they might be changing it back to the black ops system, whilst keeping the stuff from MW3 like being able to use your 3 killstreaks when you want and being able to see how far you've got to go till your next one, which are improvements instead of the shit that was the killstreak system of MW3. Looks like they may be making the right choice when it comes to killstreaks this time. And the ten point system for create a class is very different and new for the multiplayer of a military shooter. Doesn't mean it'll be any different.

 

[Ninjamedic]

No.

Not buying it.

Liked COD4, thought it was fun ride with a good balanced narrative with a nice simple multiplayer.

MW2 was a sickening Michael Bay film crammed into a game with a broken multiplayer that actively encouraged the worst in people. I gave that game hours of my life to like it and still hated it.

Black Ops multiplayer was the exact same and I couldn't even be arsed to play the campaign.


So, yeah, never getting it.

 

[feingat35]

My question: Why the hell are they calling this Black Ops 2? It seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the first game (Not that this is a bad thing. The story of Black Ops was awful, and I found it disgusting. Same with MW2 and MW3).

I don't see why they'd try to tie it back to Black Ops, as if the first game was worth a damn. Why not call it COD: Future Warfare, or something like that?