Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Review

[The White Hunter]

Snippedy-do-dah

I must ask, who or what is a SMOSH? =P

Snippedy-ay

That's one thing I forgot to mention. The music, pretty much all round is fantastic. Yeah, there's the one Skrillex song, but besides that I pretty much love all of it. Especially Trent's theme.

Urgh Skrillex. Mr. Reznor's theme is excellent and the rest of the OST is clearly heavily influenced by Reznor's earlier works, from Purest Feeling through Downward Spiral (huge NIN fan btw).

I'm really pleasanlty surprised by the game. I'm sure the campaign took me a good ten hours on Regular too, which is pretty good Need to actually have a day off work and not on a stupid shift to get some multiplayer under my belt.

 

[Dangit2019]

For another opinion check out this review from our friends at Smosh Games.

...The hell? I mean, I know cross-promotion is good and all, but really, there are much better people to associate with.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but Alloy Digital (who also own SMOSH) now own the Escapist.
Source: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/11/15/alloy-digital-acquires-escapist

Oh. Well that definitely explains it.

I still trust the Escapist people to be awesome like always, but that's a little worrying. Hopefully it ends up a good thing.

"In accordance with Smosh's creative decisions, the Escapist will replace every show on it's schedule with 5 minutes of the Smosh stars shouting random words into the camera."

-My Greatest Nightmare

 

[SomeLameStuff]

Meh, I still stand by my belief that CoD4 is still the best one.

So far, most people I know have gotten BlOps2 just for it's zombie mode. Yeesh.

 

[Erttheking]

seriously big yellow objective markers over a tank that tell the player "destroy"? i worry about gamers these days

Can't help but feel like that isn't really something to get worked up over.

 

[puff ball]

so cod has become the new madden for me pick it up once every 5 years and be amazed by the changes or buy every installation and be burned out after 3, oh well not sure if i should get this one or wait for next years modern warfare 4.

 

[nexus]

You know, I don't understand.

Coming off of the review-apocalypse for Medal of Honor, how it was lamented for being the "worst thing about gaming today", I'm kind of surprised they gave *any* praise for Call of Duty. It's exactly the same, and is everything that is boring about gaming today.

Multiplayer is the same, and I can't speak for the singleplayer, but you're telling me it's that much different than what it was before? I doubt it.

Medal of Honor was universally panned, Call of Duty is universally praised as always. Both games are equal suck. Critic sites are not applying the same issues they had with MOH to the COD reviews, it is rather jarring. Basically the setting is "futuristic" so it's okay?

 

[invadergir]

4 stars does seem fair, probably what I would rate it as.

And those Strike Force missions are bloody impossible (at least for me) on Veteran.

Definitely an improvement over Modern Warfare 3.

Finally figured out the first two strike missions on veteran. On mission 1, I stacked all my soldiers on C, took control of the mech and guarded A. I would lob grenades up at B as much as I could to knock out the hackers. Eventually B and C fell with 1-2 minutes to go, and the computer had no chance to take D with all my spawning soldiers (including one controlled by me) flooding the room at D.

On strike 2, I threw strategy out the door. Your stupid teammates AI will get them killed before they ever reach your target. Not only that, but the computer cheaply drops reinforcements in between your spawn point, and your next target, assuring your retarded team-mates will die by getting shot in the back. Assume the quickest soldier (one with an M8),and rush A. Take out any soldiers guarding the immediate area, and drop a hacking device within the sight-line of a hiding place(a crate/doorway etc). Go hide and only pop out to destroy anything targeting your device. Mostly, they will ignore it, so you can repeat with B and C and generally have 4 minutes to spare.

 

[Susan Arendt]

For another opinion check out this review from our friends at Smosh Games.

...The hell? I mean, I know cross-promotion is good and all, but really, there are much better people to associate with.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but Alloy Digital (who also own SMOSH) now own the Escapist.
Source: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/11/15/alloy-digital-acquires-escapist

Oh. Well that definitely explains it.

I still trust the Escapist people to be awesome like always, but that's a little worrying. Hopefully it ends up a good thing.

"In accordance with Smosh's creative decisions, the Escapist will replace every show on it's schedule with 5 minutes of the Smosh stars shouting random words into the camera."

-My Greatest Nightmare

It is far, far, FAR more likely that I will insert random pictures of kittens and/or otters into every show on our schedule.

...

Actually, now that I say it, that sounds kind of brilliant...

 

[Joccaren]

I...uh....what?

Both games have the same amount of repetitiveness, in both multi-player and campaign. Saying you prefer one over the other is like saying you prefer a Toyota Camry over the Holden Apollo (because they're the same car....just....badged.....differently). *ahem*

Anyway, I have been enjoying Blops2 so far, and this review is actually pretty much how I feel about it as well. First time in a while I have read an escapist review and agreed with it.

Eh, I'll have to disagree here.
Whilst BF3 is far closer to CoD than the previous installments, at least IMO, it is still a very different game in the multiplayer.
Sure, pure infantry deathmatches on the smaller maps might feel the same, but full 64 player matches with aircraft, armoured infantry and a playstyle that is more often than not based around capturing bases, rather than simply killing each other, on large maps [Even if all the bases are stuck together stupid Dice *grumbles*], different balancing of instant kills [They usually don't exist without vehichles... usually].
From the outside, they look very similar. In the campaign, they are very similar. In large scale PC multiplayer matches, they are quite different, though that often depends on the map and mode.

 

[Tsaba]

It is far, far, FAR more likely that I will insert random pictures of kittens and/or otters into every show on our schedule.

...

Actually, now that I say it, that sounds kind of brilliant...

Well, lets start.

While I have yet, to get this game, I will reserve my judgment until I see their approach to DLC. Instead of spending 15 dollars on DLC, my money would be better spent on watching the suffering of those participating on desert bus.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

An excellent review I thought.

It's made me sure about getting this game on payday.

Two things though, how much of the futuristic weaponry made it into the multiplayer? And how do killstreaks work exactly.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

You know, I don't understand.

Coming off of the review-apocalypse for Medal of Honor, how it was lamented for being the "worst thing about gaming today", I'm kind of surprised they gave *any* praise for Call of Duty. It's exactly the same, and is everything that is boring about gaming today.

Multiplayer is the same, and I can't speak for the singleplayer, but you're telling me it's that much different than what it was before? I doubt it.

Medal of Honor was universally panned, Call of Duty is universally praised as always. Both games are equal suck. Critic sites are not applying the same issues they had with MOH to the COD reviews, it is rather jarring. Basically the setting is "futuristic" so it's okay?

Judging from what I've seen of both games, Medal of Honour is buggy as hell, linear, hand holding to the point of which it doesn't let you shoot very much, and it's story is lack luster in terms of the way it's told.

Blops 2 has more diversity in terms of weaponry, enemies, path routes, a better story, and has generally more content consisting of Campaign, Strike missions, Zombie survival and Multiplayer.

 

[Metalrocks]

I...uh....what?

Both games have the same amount of repetitiveness, in both multi-player and campaign. Saying you prefer one over the other is like saying you prefer a Toyota Camry over the Holden Apollo (because they're the same car....just....badged.....differently). *ahem*

Anyway, I have been enjoying Blops2 so far, and this review is actually pretty much how I feel about it as well. First time in a while I have read an escapist review and agreed with it.

Eh, I'll have to disagree here.
Whilst BF3 is far closer to CoD than the previous installments, at least IMO, it is still a very different game in the multiplayer.
Sure, pure infantry deathmatches on the smaller maps might feel the same, but full 64 player matches with aircraft, armoured infantry and a playstyle that is more often than not based around capturing bases, rather than simply killing each other, on large maps [Even if all the bases are stuck together stupid Dice *grumbles*], different balancing of instant kills [They usually don't exist without vehichles... usually].
From the outside, they look very similar. In the campaign, they are very similar. In large scale PC multiplayer matches, they are quite different, though that often depends on the map and mode.

pretty much that.
the SP is of course the same as cod. lots of QTE and shooting. wile the MP is the best part of it.
thats why i prefer more BF3 because you have bigger maps. and at least no kill streaks and perks that you have to worry about a heli that can shoot you down 7 times in a row.

i even took my time to view some reviews on youtube to see the MP and how everything works. even when it sounds more balanced with the perks and kill streaks, im still not convinced that the game play as such will be better.

 

[TimeLord]

at least until you die instantly because you accidentally ran off the level and "you've abandoned you mission." You don't even get a warning to turn back. Here's an exciting mission that stretches the boundaries for a military shooter, then slaps you back down for not playing by its rules.

I never got that in the Russian defence mission, but I did get it in the mission where you have to defend the president in a jet fighter. Seriously, they give you a rediculously tiny area to fly around in and they tell you that you have an afterburner! If you use it for more than 2 seconds then you get shot off the end of the map. Really disappointed that they didn't capitalise on the jet idea more.

 

[fozzy360]

You know, I don't understand.

Coming off of the review-apocalypse for Medal of Honor, how it was lamented for being the "worst thing about gaming today", I'm kind of surprised they gave *any* praise for Call of Duty. It's exactly the same, and is everything that is boring about gaming today.

Multiplayer is the same, and I can't speak for the singleplayer, but you're telling me it's that much different than what it was before? I doubt it.

Medal of Honor was universally panned, Call of Duty is universally praised as always. Both games are equal suck. Critic sites are not applying the same issues they had with MOH to the COD reviews, it is rather jarring. Basically the setting is "futuristic" so it's okay?

The problem with MOH is that it's fundamentally broken. At least Blops 2 not only still functions as more of a game than MOH, but it also tries, in a variety of ways, to inject some new things into its aging design. Critics have been complementing Treyarch's efforts to give players something new than just another modern military shooter. MOH just shamelessly apes both Battlefield and CoD without understanding what makes either of them work. Its sole existence is based on a failed tactic to mimic Activision's plan of one CoD every year by having MOH switch off with Battlefield in that regard. Basically, MOH is the epitome of everything wrong with the industry in that its a game that no one asked for, no one wanted to play, and was hyped to hell and back but ended up being a hallow, worthless thing designed to do nothing but grab the cash of those infatuated with modern military shooters.

In a nutshell.

 

[Tiamat666]

Riding a horse armed with a rocket launcher blowing up soviet tanks?

Nobody else find this scene highly... comical?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Medal of Honor was universally panned, Call of Duty is universally praised as always. Both games are equal suck. Critic sites are not applying the same issues they had with MOH to the COD reviews, it is rather jarring. Basically the setting is "futuristic" so it's okay?

Blops 2 does everything MOH does far, far better and then adds a whole lot more.

The campaign isn't riddled with bugs for a start, it has far better and far more frequent actual gunplay, more open level design, far more environmental and activity variety and has plenty of new stuff never seen before in the missions, such as...

Wait a minute. I'm arguing with someone who is criticizing a campaign they haven't even played. Lol.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Riding a horse armed with a rocket launcher blowing up soviet tanks?

Nobody else find this scene highly... comical?

This a precisely why Blops 2's campaign is so much fun. They took it up to 11 in almost every aspect and embraced the sheer lunacy of it all.

 

[nexus]

Medal of Honor was universally panned, Call of Duty is universally praised as always. Both games are equal suck. Critic sites are not applying the same issues they had with MOH to the COD reviews, it is rather jarring. Basically the setting is "futuristic" so it's okay?

Blops 2 does everything MOH does far, far better and then adds a whole lot more.

The campaign isn't riddled with bugs for a start, it has far better and far more frequent actual gunplay, more open level design, far more environmental and activity variety and has plenty of new stuff never seen before in the missions, such as...

Wait a minute. I'm arguing with someone who is criticizing a campaign they haven't even played. Lol.

Well, yea I haven't played it, and don't really plan to, lol. I'm sure it's a little "different" in a manner of speaking, but it's going to be just like the other CoDs in function. I never invest much in these games because I hate their multiplayer style, and $60 forever (they never drop price) is too much for the lackluster campaigns, in my opinion.

So yea, I believe you when you say it's different and adds new features, but it's still Call of Duty. I won't begrudge someone for playing it (anymore), I just thought it was interesting that it doesn't get any critical neggo for basically being everything that critics usually hate during the "CoD off-season".