My thoughts on Call of Duty Black Ops 2 (PC)

P

PatchRowcester

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
243
I recently finished this game, and man was it a disappointment. I have no idea why I bother playing a Call of Duty game anymore. Perhaps because they appeal to my most juvenile senses by showing those trailers (this could explain why I watched Transformers in theater :p), but once I start playing the game, I realize how backward it is! Give it a read if you are interested.

CLICK HERE FOR PICTURES & VIDEO

When they announce a new Call of Duty game - I am optimistic. Maybe this time around things will be different; maybe its not, all flash and no substance; maybe they don't treat gamers like puppets; maybe the gameplay will justify the hype and just maybe the game is going to be good.

Then I play the game - and disappointment ensues. Within the first couple of missions, I know exactly how the entire game is going to play out - pretty much as badly as the previous ones. This serves to reinforce the point - just because the marketing people managed to get a lot of TV coverage for a game, it does not make the game any good. It just means the marketing people are doing one hell of job, while the developers are rehashing the old formula to death.

The visuals are not good, the story is incoherent for the most part, poor level design, invisible walls everywhere, linear gameplay - the list goes on. I did not care for the Strike Force missions. They were boring, and after playing for 10 minutes, I realized there is no fun to be had, and considering they were optional, I skipped past them. The game informed that in a strike force missions that I never played, some world changing event happened. I will take its word for it. I thought to myself, would playing these missions somehow make me enjoy the single player more? Would the linear levels bother me any less? Would it make the invisible walls go away? I know the answer is no, for all the above.

If ever there is a course on game design, I think the Call of Duty games should be used as an example on how not to design levels. Its crazy how backwards the design is. I've played games in late 90s and early 2000 which had more freedom and better level design than this. Return to Castle Wolfenstein, No One Lives Forever, Half Life, the first Call of Duty were all excellent examples of creating a linear game without the kind of mindless restrictions that the new call of duty games have.

It seems to me that the only reason for this kind of level design is to ensure that the developers don't have to spend time thinking about what the player might do. They don't have to account for player action, when all actions except the ones that are strictly developer approved are removed, including deviating from the pre determined path by just a few steps. How this has not caused an outrage, I will not know.

Perhaps the trick is to cater to a generation of audience that do not know any better. For them, invisible walls, unskippable cut scenes, game taking control of player action every 5 minutes, quick time events, 4 hour long single player campaign which pretty much plays itself are the norm. This is unfortunate, because there is no money to be made in making a game that is intelligent, well thought-out, and allows players the freedom to explore, and try different styles of gameplay. Crysis did this, and while it received rave reviews, PC gamers shunned it somewhat. Crytek made more money by giving players less in the follow up games. They called it a choreographed sandbox - which is a fancy term for linear levels.

If this is going to be the trend, then I am not excited for the next generation of games. If they are not trying anything different than the cut scene-checkpoint-QTE-cut scene-checkpoint tedium, what good are the shiny new visuals? Something as basic as quick save, console tweaks which were taken for granted years ago are now considered features when they are supported - which is not very often. This makes even less sense because gamers complain about absolutely everything - sometimes about games they haven't played and never will.

So how is it that these games still exist? I don't know, but after playing this game - which was released in 2012 - it just made me sad at the current state of gaming. At this point, I am willing to bet that Call of Duty: Ghosts will not be any different.
Click to expand...
 
How's the multiplayer? Saw it on sale on Steam and was thinking of grabbing it, couldn't really give a shit about the single player.

The COD style single player was fun back when MW came out, it's been a bit overdone now, and not just by COD.
 
Tudz said:
How's the multiplayer? Saw it on sale on Steam and was thinking of grabbing it, couldn't really give a shit about the single player.

The COD style single player was fun back when MW came out, it's been a bit overdone now, and not just by COD.
Click to expand...

Last I checked it still has the worst MP of any COD though the zombie MP is ok I spose.

So if imagine youre in your basement. Thats the biggest size of the maps in BLOPS2. Oh you don't have a basement? Then imagine youre in a linen closet. Thats right about the size of the maps in BLOPS2.

(IDK about MW3 I never played. Apparently was the most unholy thing ever created.)
 
I am not really sure how the multiplayer is either. I usually play the single player campaigns on these games just to see if they are any good. I typically finish them in about 4-5 hours anyway.

I don't play multiplayer because I am playing these games on my friend's steam account, so I don't want to screw up his stats :p

After Call of Duty Modern Warfare, I just did not see any reason to buy these games.
 
You based your review on the single player? :confused:
 
xIronCrossx said:
You based your review on the single player? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah, COD these days strikes me 90% as a MP game. The single player is just for shits and giggles until you get to the MP. Granted I haven't bought any of the recent CODs, but MW1 I think the single player campaign was about 6 hours long and then I played the multiplayer for about 300 hours.

As much as people love to hate on COD, I haven't disliked the MP in any of the CODs I've played thus far (on free weekends). I just haven't actually BOUGHT the games because they usually don't drop in price until after the new one comes out. While I don't think the games are particularly bad, nor do I think they are worth full price, so I never end up buying them :p The majority of games I don't think are worth their full price, it's just COD happens to be one of those games that maintains it's full price for far too long.

The MP has been getting increasingly absurd with kill streak rewards and such, something I didn't like even in MW1 when it was reasonably tame (I disliked the way you could get on a choppa streak, kill 7 people, then die, call choppa, choppa kills 3-5 people while you hide, kill 2 more to bring up a fresh choppa streak, die, call another choppa, repeat).
 
xIronCrossx said:
You based your review on the single player? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. I was only ever talking about the single player part of the game. I understand a lot of people only play for MP, but I am sure there is a small portion of us who care about SP, and I have learned my lesson after MW2 and BF3 - the single player is included so that the marketing folks can advertise it.

There is no thought put into it, and it was just terrible.
 
PatchRowcester said:
Yes indeed. I was only ever talking about the single player part of the game. I understand a lot of people only play for MP, but I am sure there is a small portion of us who care about SP, and I have learned my lesson after MW2 and BF3 - the single player is included so that the marketing folks can advertise it.

There is no thought put into it, and it was just terrible.
Click to expand...

In games like COD and BF, I don't mind them doing a poor job on the SP if it means more time is spent on the MP (and I'm not suggesting the COD has had big improvements in the MP either :p).

It's more of a rarity than common place to have a game that simultaneously has a good SP and also a good MP.
 
I hope the fish swim out the way in this COD, they needed to fix that. And more whiskey tango niner foxtrot charley radio talk.. needs some more bro in it.
 
Zombies mode is where it's at :) There hasn't been an original MP combat game is over a decade


I've owned it since launch and I think I'm 'maybe' a level 10 rank in MP. It's okay I suppose, but I find Zombies much more entertaining

edit: and I can't think of anyone that plays COD for the SP campaign. The vast majority buy it for the MP
 
CoD, the first one really blew me away. I played it on PC only. Then CoD2 on Xbox 360 was alright. After that, I was just disappointed. Perhaps I was spoiled by the first one. Crank up the volume, and sit and play the thing for hours. Very immersive and FUN.
 
I understand why folks look at me funny when I say I kind of care about the single player campaign in CoD games, but keep in mind, my introduction to CoD was when the first game was released, which was totally fantastic. I mean, I played the game again not too long ago, and it holds up very well for me.

I wish I could say that about any of the other CoD games after Modern Warfare. I guess I could safely assume that SP is going to be a rehash of the old gameplay forever.

Mark my words, CoD Ghosts (even with the dog), is going play out exactly the same way as the other ones. Invisible walls and all included!
 
PatchRowcester said:
I understand why folks look at me funny when I say I kind of care about the single player campaign in CoD games, but keep in mind, my introduction to CoD was when the first game was released, which was totally fantastic. I mean, I played the game again not too long ago, and it holds up very well for me.

I wish I could say that about any of the other CoD games after Modern Warfare. I guess I could safely assume that SP is going to be a rehash of the old gameplay forever.

Mark my words, CoD Ghosts (even with the dog), is going play out exactly the same way as the other ones. Invisible walls and all included!
Click to expand...

Of course it will be the same. It's been that way since the original COD. Invisible walls, endless waves of enemies until you hit a checkpoint, etc etc

The SP formula hasn't changed (outside of the backdrop of the story). The only thing that's really changed over the years is the MP
 
dr.stevil said:
Of course it will be the same. It's been that way since the original COD. Invisible walls, endless waves of enemies until you hit a checkpoint, etc etc

The SP formula hasn't changed (outside of the backdrop of the story). The only thing that's really changed over the years is the MP
Click to expand...

The first game did not have checkpoints, and it did not have infinite enemy respawn. there may have been invisible walls, but that was more forgivable in 2003 than in 2013. Don't you think so?
 
PatchRowcester said:
there may have been invisible walls, but that was more forgivable in 2003 than in 2013. Don't you think so?
Click to expand...
Even "back in the day" I feel good level design usually avoided or reduced invisible walls.

But you don't make a very convincing argument when your video is you trying to jump in to a pool. I don't really expect them to let you jump in to a pool in a game like this.
 
PatchRowcester said:
Yes indeed. I was only ever talking about the single player part of the game. I understand a lot of people only play for MP, but I am sure there is a small portion of us who care about SP, and I have learned my lesson after MW2 and BF3 - the single player is included so that the marketing folks can advertise it.

There is no thought put into it, and it was just terrible.
Click to expand...

It's just an added feature to the multilayer game. Reviewing call of duty as a single player is like reviewing a car based on its trunk and cup holders...
 
Tudz said:
Even "back in the day" I feel good level design usually avoided or reduced invisible walls.

But you don't make a very convincing argument when your video is you trying to jump in to a pool. I don't really expect them to let you jump in to a pool in a game like this.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that. That was not the best video to show invisible walls. There are other videos that I must upload. Rest assured, you will be surprised at how restrictive the game could be,
 
Domini said:
I love Zombies mode, but in BLOP2 its awful to me...
Click to expand...

that was my feeling originally too, but it's grown on me. Love how wide open all of the maps have been and really like the new leader board system and theater mode. The new PermaPerks and easter egg emphasis is also nice. My only real disappointment is that the survival maps have just been re-hashes of areas from tranzit maps instead of original content. So far though, MOTD, Die Rise and Tranzit have offered a lot of replay value. It's also nice that they continue to add new content (new perma-perks being added, addition of bank/fridge to die rise, etc)

I really hope that Treyarch decides to port all the existing WaW and BO1 maps over to BOII
 
Domini said:
I dont see why not, its practically the same game
Click to expand...

I'd of assumed that they would, but I think the BO2 zombies is running on the MP engine rather than the SP that WaW and BO1 used. I hold out hope that they do though. It'd be nice to not have to keep the old one floating around collecting dust.
 
dr.stevil said:
I'd of assumed that they would, but I think the BO2 zombies is running on the MP engine rather than the SP that WaW and BO1 used. I hold out hope that they do though. It'd be nice to not have to keep the old one floating around collecting dust.
Click to expand...

What? How would it be running on the "SP engine"?

Josh123 said:
I'm sure they will.............for $15.
Click to expand...

I would say thats a bargain for all WaW and BO1 maps
 
Domini said:
What? How would it be running on the "SP engine"?
Click to expand...

For Black Ops: Zombies and World at War: Zombies, Treyarch used a modified version of the SP engine. However, for BO2, they used the MP engine. So stat tracking, leaderboards, theater mode, match making, etc were all improved.

Domini said:
I would say thats a bargain for all WaW and BO1 maps
Click to expand...

Hell... I'd pay probably even pay up to 30.00 for a BO/WaW map pack. That's a ton of content
 
Ur_Mom said:
CoD, the first one really blew me away. I played it on PC only. Then CoD2 on Xbox 360 was alright. After that, I was just disappointed. Perhaps I was spoiled by the first one. Crank up the volume, and sit and play the thing for hours. Very immersive and FUN.
Click to expand...

Yep, and it was even on rails! It was just rails done right, like HL.
 
xIronCrossx said:
You based your review on the single player? :confused:
Click to expand...

I think this is a legitimate approach. Because with the current state of gaming, you know the game's going to be pulled offline and then that's all that players are going to have left.

OP - great article!
 
jbltecnicspro said:
I think this is a legitimate approach. Because with the current state of gaming, you know the game's going to be pulled offline and then that's all that players are going to have left.

OP - great article!
Click to expand...

Such bullshit. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top