It's just me but this one is actually pretty good. Expected more of the same CoD mess (which is what I wanted) but was pleasantly surprised. Maybe it doesn't deserve this much praise
BO2 is everything we've ever wanted. High speed, choices; a grand scope of a game. Equal to any classic PC shooter. It shows the good from the average... Now people whine because it's too fast & requires too much thinking. These same people that crid "I miss Quake/Duke/Unreal/Serious Sam." Well, you were either bad at those & didn't realize it, or your view of the past is highly distorted...
oh wait yes it does
If anyone's playing on Xbox my gamertag is still DuckReconMajor
DuckReconMajor said: Expected more of the same CoD mess (which is what I wanted) but was pleasantly surprised.
Without even looking at the reviews or an un-bias description on the internet, I can near guarantee the singleplayer portion of the game is no different, or any less boring, monotonous, bland and devoid of imagination than every other Call of Duty.
If you're praising it's multiplayer then I'm right behind you. Even if what you're effectively buying is an overpriced map & weapons DLC.
It has a non-linear storyline that adapts to choices the player makes, plus all the cool vehicle stuff (and a horse) that Black Ops has. Personally I'd quite fancy buying and playing the single player, but I'd want it to cost less than £42, as the multiplayer would either require me subscribing to XBox Live or just be unused by me. The campaign won't be more than 6-7 hours long and I'd not be too enthusiastic about paying more than £25 for it, even factoring in the multiple play throughs, the small-scale RTS-style missions and the zombies mode. Saying that, Black Ops was full of extra hidden goodies if you looked hard enough, so maybe I'm just being tight...
Walk into locked-in area A and shoot bad guys, or walk into locked-in area B and shoot some other bad guys?
More like "let this character survive to have potentially world-changing consequences" or "let him die to get an easier ride at some point". You know, actual large changes that come to both the story and what missions you take. You talk about bias earlier, but seem to forget bias can go against something (like yours clearly does) as well as in favour of it.
Phobus said: You talk about bias earlier, but seem to forget bias can go against something (like yours clearly does) as well as in favour of it.
Point taken. It's just that with every new CoD game people say it's better than the previous one, and so far it's been a proclaimed paradigm I just can't recognise. All of these Modern Military Shooters have blurred together for me, and it's as if the same game is being re-released over and over.
I don't even see how a non-linear storyline can make it any more interesting, but I'll live and let live.
It's just that with every new CoD game people say it's better than the previous one, and so far it's been a proclaimed paradigm I just can't recognise.
I can chart minor improvements between the entries that I've played in each studios series, but there tends to be some mitigating losses too. For instance, World at War had a co-op campaign that made Veteran difficulty pretty liveable, but it also had severe grenade spam (however you played the campaign) swarms of Japanese bansai charges in the American missions and a real love of infinite swarms, requiring you to reach certain points to shut those off. Annoying design based around the multi-player oriented gun play and movement speed. Black Ops lost the co-op capable campaign (sadly) but also dropped the grenade spam, made less use (but not none, unfortunately) of infinite swarms. It then added in things like Dead Ops Arcade and other easter eggs and goodies hidden away in the collectible intel and that computer terminal, whilst also expanding upon the popular zombies mode. Still multi-player oriented gun play and slow movement being worked with though. They're both, broadly speaking, the same game, but Black Ops does it better IMO.
If you don't like the older ones you're unlikely to enjoy the current one either, but there do tend to be significant changes. I was quite surprised at how much I enjoyed playing through Black Ops (Veteran wasn't much fun though - you die too quickly and easily so it all becomes a tiresome trial-and-error exercise thanks to the auto-saving) and was even more surprised to see how much difference there was between my approach and my brother's, even when playing on the same difficulty in the same section of map (and therefore how much choice the player has taking on the prescribed challenges).
Some friends own it. I haven't seen single player, but tried a little multi.
I like the super beefy sound effects for many of the guns and explosives. The ten-point system is interesting. I hope it leads to a lot of crazy/weird classes, and just doesn't turn into "these are objectively the three best loadouts" like all of the games before it.
Black Ops was my favorite Call of Duty for both gameplay in multiplayer and I think it had the best story out of any Call of Duty game. In fact, I felt like it wasn't even a Call of Duty game at all.
When Black Ops 2 was first announced and I saw the screenshots I thought it looked horrible... however, I now love it just as much as I loved the first one. I hear a lot of mixed opinions, but I'm sure it will still be much better than the recently announced Modern Warfare 4.
The single player is a piece of poop, but the multiplayer is better than expected. Certainly less broken bullshit than previous games. The zombies mode is fun too to play with friends. I give it 6 out of 10, not bad.
I liked Black Ops enough to buy it recently, and as far as console games it seems to be the only one I can do good in. Well, that and World at War Wii on a good day, and Modern Warfare (The only truly good Modern War CoD). I kinda want to look at Black Ops II, though watching some vids of singleplayer it doesn't look to amazing. I'll wait for a friend to buy it.
Phobus said: Shock news, Yahtzee doesn't like it :o
I can't bring myself to dispute his general opinion of MMS'ers, but if it's any consolation there's not many games he does like and I've found myself disagreeing with him on multiple occasions, despite his negativity being a comedic gimmick that I'm sure is often exaggerated for entertainment's purposes.
Oh, I'm in no way disappointed by that fact, he hasn't liked one since CoD4 from what I remember. I watch Yahtzee for the entertainment really and just glean enough info to get a vague idea of what the game is (if I didn't already know).
Also, bought my youngest brother BlOps2 for Christmas. He's said he doesn't mind if I play it in the intervening few weeks, given that he's unlikely to see me, so I'll get through the campaign (maybe twice, if I can be bothered to check the other endings and progressions) on a weekend and then gift wrap it for him. Might give zombies a whirl, but that's never too hot on your lonesome.
I thought BLOPS was decent, but I'm finding that this game is somehow worse then MW3 in almost every way. The maps are even smaller and more cramped, there's way too many spots to headglitch, the Domination flag positions suck, and the lag compensation is extreme. I have a good connection, and I just get destroyed by people now. Its like MW3's lag compensation but worse.
Philnemba said: -How is League Play competitive if everything is unlock for everybody?
more equal playing field
as for leveling up guns you keep your attachments/camos when you prestige so that it's no longer a choice between prestiging and keeping your pretty weapons which I think is good but not everyone agrees i understand