Mar 6, 2014Call Of Duty: Black Ops II is my personal favorite game to ever exist. amazing graphics, tons of blood and gore, zombies, multiplayer and tons more! I could go on and on about how much I love this game, and yet you idiots give it a 0! If you like carnage and violence, play this game! Granted, it does have the same story as any other Call Of Duty game, but that doesn't matter! This one allows you to do stuff like it was your choice whether to resist or shoot the guy in that 1900's mission. And at the end, you had a choice to capture Melendez, or blow his brains out!… Expand
Mar 2, 2014Cliff notes for people that don't want to hear the same old "OMG COD IS THE SAME GAME EVERY YEAR WAH WAH" ****
The Good: Incredible class customization; pick 10 is the best thing to happen to COD in ages. Very fast paced compared to older CODs. Consistently high frame rate. Multiple endings in campaign is a nice change. RTS vets like myself will like the Strike Force Missions. Creating your own emblem is even better than before and far outshines MW series. Melee kills require you to be closer (thank god). Quick scoping hasn't been eliminated, but is harder than before. Also great call on creating bullet clouds to trace back to camping snipers. First zombie maps are the same old stuff, but newer ones are very exciting.
The Bad: Movement feels more..... "floaty," for lack of a better word, very different from other CODs. Maps are too SMG friendly.
Overall: Single player is a bit muddled, but definitely better than most CODs. Multiplayer feels different, but has breathed new life in what would be stagnating gameplay. It's not TOTALLY new, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Worth buying.… Expand
Feb 20, 2014Do not get me started with this game. The lead developer, David Vonderhaar, is quite possibly the most idiotic man the gaming industry has ever seen. There are a few select guns in the multiplayer that are entirely unbalanced and require little to no skill to use (generally speaking, the snipers, light machines guns, and a couple of shotguns). The latency is unbearable as the developers deliberately do nothing to fix it. "Let's released weapon camo DLC microtransactions instead of fixing the lag!"
The campaign isn't bad, nothing new.
However, the one redeeming factor about this game is its Zombies mode. It's a whole load of fun, and the development team for this game mode clearly put much more work into the game (yes, it's a different team) and genuinely care about their players. I highly recommend you play Zombies in this game at least once, as it is a stark contrast and a huge step up from the previous games.
Average, overall rating: 4/10
It's important to remember that these three game modes are very different and you should not judge any of them based off of the others.… Expand
Feb 18, 2014This is the best cod since cod 4. Mw2 was good but had a ton of balance issues. Do you know why people automatically attack this game for its lag (which wasn't even that bad)? It's because there was no other problems with it.
Campaign- well told and fun to play. Multiple endings and very interesting characters and plot give this campaign a high replay value.
Multiplayer- perfectly balanced, no OP weapons or equipment. The killstreaks are now harder to get, adding to the skill factor and making playing the objective a more feasible option. The pick ten system works flawlessly. Weapon diversity is the strongest it has been since mw2, each gun has a special play style and very different stats. The maps, albeit not as crisscrossy as previous maps, still cater to all styles of play with many different sight lines and ranges, which makes for very diversified gameplay and fun battles.
Zombies- more free roam, which I think is a big improvement over Kino Der Toten's cramped hallways. It is also more story driven, while still allowing you to chill and mess around if you want. The new characters, while not quite as badass as the black ops characters, still mange to be likable and interesting.
Overall, bo2 gets a 10/10. This game is a perfect example of how to rejuvenate a veteran franchise.… Expand
Feb 13, 2014I personally think that BO2 was one of the best Call of Duty's out there right now. I didn't buy the game, I borrowed it, but I played the living **** out of the game and really enjoyed it, it's FAR SUPERIOR THAN GHOSTS. I know you guys will probably **** murder me for saying this, but I do think that this is a good Call of Duty despite the fact that there was a steaming pile of **** that was MW3. BO2 gave us some choice in the campaign and it was really cool to see the story play out a different way than some other person. Multiplayer actually introduced some new mechanics, the Pick 10 system, new modes, and FAR BETTER MAPS. Lastly, you get the final piece of the puzzle, which is Zombies. I truly don't know what to say about this mode, it's funny, it's hard, and it's just plain addicting. Zombies has never been this fun and I hope that the next Treyarch game will be just as good as this one. Treyarch actually **** listens to the community and unlike the new Infinity Ward, THEY CARE ABOUT THE PC GAMERS. End of review, this game, to my surprise, delivered a good experience compared to Ghosts and MW3, Treyarch is actually making the best of CoD now.… Expand
Feb 7, 2014Black Ops II is a much needed enhancement for the Call of Duty series. Working on what it's done best, Treyarch takes the brightest idea from past installments and reworks them, with a outstanding and truly worth playing campaign. The multiplayer, despite receiving a fresh coat of paint on the interface, that still doesn't hide the fact it's still missing some key components to make it run. As for Zombies, it was more or less a let down, not bad I'll say, just not up to what they had advertised.
Campaign: First off the interface. Unlike older titles, Treyarch decided to introduce it's multiplayer selection system to allow for players to choose what they want to play with, what attachments, and even equipment. Even though this did make playing through on Veteran a tad bit easy since you could just choose to overpower your setup with the best possible weapons, it didn't take away or hurt the experience.
The story had a very large amount of thought put into it, making for the best and most contemplating experience to date. It raises questions of plausibility, something other titles lacked with their over the top plot lines and dumb decisions. Looking at you MW3. Really?! You expect me to believe modern Russia is gonna take on EVERYONE?! That's just stupid.
Spanning two different time frames, the story is either told by the aged Frank Woods, or through the eyes of David Mason, Alex Mason's son. Alex being the protagonist from Black Ops. Set in the year 2025, this brought up doubts on how well Treyarch would be able to portray the future, but surprisingly, they created a justified and believable world.
Treyarch's promise of player choice was well portrayed, and even though this isn't choice like a sandbox game, every major thing you do has a reaction, changing the scope of the ending all together. Some of the choices though don't display which is the correct answer till a second play through. Also, some choices are extremely telegraphed, making it very easy to tell what you should or shouldn't do. Player choice is kinda a hit or miss type of setup. It's nice, and here's hoping Treyarch continue the trend, but it isn't perfect in this installment.
Gameplay is the same as always though, cheap gimmicks to draw in players combined with a stealth mission, a helicopter mission, ect. ect. It follows that Call of Duty formula we're all so used to. But atleast in this title we are informed why we're doing each mission. Unlike that of Ghosts, in which the developers simply assumed we want to go along with it, instead of persuading us.
All in all, the campaign, though slightly short for a single play-through, is definitely the best piece of the package. Requiring multiple plays to get the whole story.
Multiplayer: Simply put, it's the same horse, but with a different saddle. The maps are all still fitting into that medium to small size that doesn't really allow for much diversity or tactics. The weapons list is still flooded with SMG's and Assualt Rifles. And a lack of genuinely new or exciting game modes is really a let down.
The interface though had donned a new set up for the Create-A-Class, titled Pick 10. This allows players to mix and match to suit their play style, which definitely helped the game feel not quite so redundant.
Create-a-Emblem had been greatly enhanced though, adding 22 more layers than it's predecessor, Black Ops. Still though, it's not as great or detailed as say the Forza Layer creator system is. It's not a bad change, but it could still use some work.
Overall, the multiplayer is still virtually the same, but it is a bit of an improvement from MW3's lack of innovation.
Zombies: Though not quite a campaign like everyone was hoping for, myself included, it adds quite a few nice touches and a much larger map than any before. Most of the gameplay gimmicks seem like just that at first glance, but the more a player digs, the more they unearth. Though no real story is present in Tranzit, a small story can be achieved with two to four player co-op, in 'The Tower of Babble' Achievement/Trophy. The fact this has to be in co-op though is a little unfair, since players like myself try to stay away from coordinating other players. Some prefer to work alone.
All in all, it's a fun addition with much enjoyment to be had.
Call of Duty: Black Ops II is a fun game for the series and a much needed improvement, but it's still Call of Duty at it's core. It's plagued by issues that developers seem to wanna ignore, such as multiplayer map size, or linear gameplay. It's not so much of a linear story which is good, but no matter how you play it, you always wander down the same halls, shooting the same nameless, faceless Joes.… Expand
Jan 26, 2014Acceptable but not great. Graphics are good but not as good as Battlefield and Crysis. The campaign follows WOW and BO but is a bit of an improvement. I am quite disappointed in the Zombies mode as it could use improvement. The multiplayer is pretty good, especially the League Play despite all the little dumb 7-13 year olds shouting through the microphone.
Jan 22, 2014This game is not as good as what much of the critics are saying, but it's not as bad as what most of the users here on Metacritic are saying, this game does not deserve tens but it shouldn't be given twos or zeroes either it is not realistic.
The single player is the best so far in COD, it is not linear in the sense, you can do things, it tells a far richer story, and has a lot more replay value since you can choose what to do, the outcomes and what happens are also determined by your faults; there are outcomes where you don't deliberately chose what to do, but where you fail this or unsuccessfully do that for example unsuccessfully spying on Menendez.. It is good that they put Black Ops 2 in the near future, 2025, with future technology, and warfare being defined by robotics and futuristic tech. Strike Force is good, playing RTS like missions, you must play them for the better of the campaign story and what happens. The single is easily one of the best in this generation and it isn't short either. It is hard for me to explain the story though.
As for the multiplayer, having bot support for all game modes (but not Search & Destroy and fun stuff such as Gun Game) is an improvement, to me it is, they don't really get big score streaks since they rarely live long enough but they are smart.
As for improvements, you have the "pick 10" thing for your class, which allows more robust customization. There is new Hardpoint mode, the maps are great, more than 1 attachment, proper local bot support and overall the multiplayer is good and so far the best of all COD games, but there is a side of bad things such as you don't buy weapon attachments no more, and instead, being like the crappy Modern Warfare multiplayer where you have to use your gun overtime to get attachments; attachments requiring higher and higher weapon progress, introduced in MW3, terrible change, much rather the buy gun parts than than having to use the gun lots and waiting to get what I want on it.
More importantly, pathetic weapon variety, the single player has loads of guns, but in the multiplayer, only a few, there is only 9 Assault Rifles, 6 SMG's, 4 Shotguns, 4 Sniper Rifles and 4 Light Machine Guns and that's it. One old and big issue is that this game still counts as a loss for quitting a game and it still puts you on games in progress much of the time which annoys me a lot, because I (every other player as well) am mostly being put on losing team in the middle of a game because the players on the team had quit, it does put me off at times as it is really annoying. Overall, I would play the multiplayer sometimes, but it's not great.
Zombies is really good, but without DLC, all what you get is TranZit which is boring, Town, and Farm which has no pack a punch, and a cool versus mode which is for Turned. Zombies is really good, but is ruined by this one big issue: few good weapons with the weapon box, with the mystery box you are mostly getting bad stuff and there is awfully few good guns, just MTAR, M8A1, the auto Shotgun, Type 25, HAMR, RPD and the Ray Gun.
Every game I play I spend much of the time trying to get good guns from it and I'm pretty sure you have this problem as well.
If Black Ops 2 was set in the 1960's, '70's and '80's, it would have ruined it and mark another big step back for Call of Duty. Treyarch will definitely take COD further into the future, I think the next game should take place in it the year 2083, I like that, future weapons, and much more future fiction. Bigger and dynamic maps and other things we want. I would also like drones (Dragonfire like things for example), CLAWs and similar things to be used in the multiplayer, not as a streak reward, but as things that would appear in the games as they go by.
I'm giving giving Black Ops 2 an eight because of the campaign, that's where this game is really good and worth getting for single player.… Expand
Jan 9, 2014I think my review of this game sums up what the Call of Duty franchise is but in one word, uninspired. This game is just nothing new at all and it brings nothing new to the world of first-person shooters. It's saving grace is it's local multiplayer (Zombies especially) but it's just not enough to save this game from being just.....uninspired and lazy.
Jan 9, 2014A compelling story, amazing multiplayer, and a creative new Zombie mode, This is by far one of the best in the series. The campaign has many different time periods and a big variety of missions, The Multiplayer is completely reinvented with new guns, class systems, and killstreaks. The Zombie mode is very fun and has a new addition "Tranzit" If you are a COD fan and want something extremely fun and are looking for a refreshing new game then look no further!… Expand
Jan 7, 2014It's pretty much MW3, but with a slick, James Bond-esque theme instead of the dull military theme of the last cod. Damage is still wildly inconsistent, sniper rifles dominate the game, and spawning is still as bad as ever. The campaign is dull and boring-why make a new cold war when there's still so much of the real Cold War left unexplored?
Jan 1, 2014Would much rather play this game over ghosts. I thought this game had issues til ghost came along. Fresh breathe of air after switching discs. This cod game has a much better multiplayer unless you're a camper, then feel free to play ghosts and never come back
Dec 31, 2013Better than MW3. The multiplayer is more fun, and the futuristic weapons and ideas really seem to work, the zombies remains mostly the same, adds a few small things, and the single player is just decent. Don't expect much different from the basic CoD formula with this one, decent game.
Call of Duty: Black Ops II gets a 7.7/10.
Dec 26, 2013Call of Duty: Black Ops II is almost three games in one, with some decent add-on content available as well. The campaign is refreshing, multiplayer innovative, and zombies experimentive. The campaign has multiple endings, making each playthrough feel unique. The multiplayer is fun with new weapons, maps, and the pick-10 system. Zombies is now a hit-or-miss experience. You'll either fall in love with tranzit, or absolutely hate it. The dlc for this game is also very well done. Nuketown 2025 and all other maps are a blast to play on. The same can't be said for the zombies dlc. Nuketown zombies is a fun, yet flawed experience due to its randomization. The first dlc map for zombies, Die Rise, is terrible. Buried and the Alcatraz map, on the other hand, are the two best zombies maps in the game, both offering fun and addictive experiences. Origins, the final dlc zombies map, is best described as a let down. Sure, the fan favorite characters have returned, but the map is not fun to play on. The boss is annoying, the map layout irritating, and the giant robots just plain strange. These issues aside, this is a surprisingly good call of duty.… Expand
Dec 19, 2013THE BEST COD ever despite it's problems, glitches, BORING STORY and etc! WHY??? Because it is the ONLY COD next to Ghosts two players can only play offline which is unacceptable!) that allows you to play with A.I bots offline in multiplayer with four players! ALL THE OTHER COD games beside Ghosts and Black Ops II DOESN'T EVEN ALLOW THAT???? WTF??? This is the only COD game that I will ever love....FORGET THE REST OF THOSE COD GAMES!!!! For awesome COD games that seem to repeat it self after COD 4 which is stated that it is the best COD game ever because of the fact that it has a LONGER CAMPAIGN and etc. I played COD 4 and took it back LOL! So much for the best COD game ever! XD Black Ops II...HERE I COME!!… Expand
Dec 17, 2013First of all, don't listen to all the haters. In my opinion, giving a 0 to a decent shooter is very childish...get a life! We all know what to expect with COD, FIFA, NBA etc.. I understand that some people have had enough of the repetition, but the concept is still great imo. They have some great impovements in the online experience and the extinction game mode is a great addition. I have to say that I have bought a couple of COD games in the past (MW1 en MW2 World at War) and I think this game is better in terms of graphics and gameplay. The single player is good, but not something special. The multiplayer works perfectly and is really enjoyable. A lot of people complain about the maps and about camping, but I do not agree with these comments. In the beginning, you will not be as good as some players, because you really have to get to know the surroundings. At the moment, I have a K-D ratio near 2.0 and I run like a rabbit (if you move well and look at the right spots, you will beat the campers easily). As your experience growths over time, you will also kill more people in the big maps. I also think that the killstreaks are not too powerful, which is a good thing. You can have a lot of strategies due to the large variety of perks, weapons and killstreaks and you can play with several characters in different outfits!… Expand
Dec 17, 2013If there is any word I would sum up this game with it would be "over-hyped." Every single CoDfish that drools over this game are either stupid or zealous fanboys. The game itself is merely a cut-and-paste version of Black Ops and, for the most part, the entire Modern Warfare series.
First off, there's the campaign. Somehow I finally managed to work up the courage to play the damn game, since I played World At War a couple months back. I usually play games for their story and in my honest opinion, the story for this game is absolute garbage. The plot twists were horribly predictable and, despite the very few choices you actually get to make in the game, it feels like many of the crap you get put through is just scripted to happen. The plot is some B-movie story that any idiot writer in Hollow-wood could come up with. The story is so convoluted that it ends up being laughable at how poorly it was written.
The mechanics are downright awful. Like most CoD games I've played, oftentimes the enemies will hit you cheaply. I mean, you're supposed to be a damn SEAL, whose fighting reflexes are supposed to be good. Instead every melee shot requires a brief "cooldown" before you can swing again. Meanwhile, the enemy you're fighting against swings again and again in no time at all (for every one swing you get, the enemy throws *at least* two, usually resulting in a very cheap death). And don't get me started on the same stupid thing that Treyarch just loves to put in that every serious gamer absolutely despises: infinite spawners. This means that enemies will just keep coming endlessly until you're able to actually push through the area (running very low on ammo in the process), and when you pass the area, the enemies just suddenly stop. Infinite spawners are just a cheap way to keep the player "entertained" while doing more cut-and-paste AI bulls*** in the next area. At one point, I even found that a simple jump across a space to an open balcony seemed simple enough if I sprinted the gap. However, I somehow fell short every damn time until I did a regular jump across, which somehow did the trick (I mean REALLY?!?! I couldn't make the jump with a faster sprint-jump?!?! I raged so hard at this obviously-scripted point).
Multiplayer. Hate it. Cut-and-paste Modern Warfare. No skill using weapons that are already stabilized for you. That's all I have to say.
All in all, Black Ops II is a game that was overly hyped with almost no difference between Modern Warfare and Black Ops. I won't be surprised if Ghosts turns out to be more of the same cut-and-paste drivel that Treyarch calls a "much-improved sequel." Just quit lying to us and admit that your modern-era CoD games are all pretty much the same game wearing different skins. Verdict: skip it unless you're an easily-fooled, diehard CoDfish.… Expand
Dec 15, 2013Call of Duty: Black Ops II has a mixture of pros and cons. It has a well thought out campaign with the all the original characters included, but the way they put the storyline into order makes the campaign a bit confusing in the first half unless you pay attention. They have added new weapons for the campaign and multiplayer, and not to mention a fully customizable load out for your weaponry selection.
The multiplayer is good, it does not lag as much as the original Black Ops, and it has a lot more matchmaking categories as well. They have also added a few more kill streaks and perks. Your load out selection and customization in multiplayer is available but you NEED TO PLAY the game to unlock the customization options. The only real problem I have is that in multiplayer, you will encounter situations where you are killed, BUT when you are killed sometimes in the killcam the player does not shoot you, sometime they shoot past you but yet still kill you.
The map graphics, textures, meshes, layouts, etc. are on the medium scale, they are not the best but they are good. The weapon models however are amazing they have very well done textures, etc. The sound quality is just above medium quality, the game sound better through a gaming headset.
Call of Duty: Black Ops II deserves a better feedback; it is actually an okay game. I give it an 8/10. I also give Activision and Treyarch credit for trying to make a sequel to the original, they did ok.… Expand
Dec 15, 2013This really is a game for absolute morons. I find it interesting how the reviews on this site are far more negative when done by normal people, rather than the reviews by people working for a major publication sponsored by the same company whose product they're reviewing. At least the game helpfully tells you how garbage it will be straight away, when you see the main character of the first Black Ops with his kid, who tells his dad to go back to the army then immediately says "you promised you wouldn't go back to the army!" It goes to show what happens when you let people who've spent their professional lives choreographing scenes of shooting foreigners write dialogue. Every mission is either deeply boring, or laughable. The mission where you help the Mujahideen against the Soviets is just running across huge landscapes of nothing, to fight amongst sand and sand coloured huts, before the developers throw in a reference to the first Black Ops when an enemy from it shows up, ironically finishing off the steaming heap of the mission was made of. The game's set in the future but you wouldn't know if half the time considering most missions are going back in time to ridiculous over-the-top recreations of the invasion of Panama, while every mission in the future only tells you by giving you some kind of high tech gadget you can use once in a scripted moment before never seeing again. While you're leading your squad of white American dudes to fight future terrorism (because I'm meant to feel sympathy for poor little America when all her merciless deathdrones get taken away) in a hundred identical corridors, I couldn't help but feel that if this game didn't have Call of Duty on the box it wouldn't get the acclaim the series thinks it's entitled to. Before, I could accept the shameless reskinning of the last game to create a sequel because the story at least had hints of interesting themes, even if MW3 was ridiculous it was still cool. This isn't; it's bland, repetitive and its attempts to do something original are awfully scripted and choreographed. And the Strike Force missions are so terrible I can't even begin to talk about them, especially after it tried to convince me that if I didn't succeed in defending this one base on the India-China border from a Chinese attack, ALL of India (one of the world's top militaries and economies, even more so in 2025) would just flop over and fall to China. I'd tell you not to buy this game but I'm sure 9 out of 10 of the people reading this already did, since it made a literal billion dollars, sending a message to the entire industry that'll last a generation that what we all really want are more games where you hold a collection of weapons and go on killing sprees of endless supplies of foreigners whose supply of expensive equipment is never called into question, all the while chasing this one bad guy whose motives are explained to make you feel sympathy but instead are the most hollow thing I can imagine short of gouging out the inside of my which is ironically what I'd rather do than play this game.… Expand
Dec 13, 2013I gave this title a 8 because it has awesome replay value. I come home sometimes and go online for a quick match and it puts a smile on my face every time. I have been playing call of duty titles for probably over 15 years and they have come along way. This will not disappoint someone looking to PWN Noobs on the daily. However I must say I don't particularly care for the single player game and story line. That's why it doesn't get a 10.… Expand
Nov 20, 2013Another year, another action game for 12-year-olds. The singleplayer is a basic CoD 4-hour-long experience. New changes include custom classes and player choices. The choices you make changes how the game ends. And that's about it. While the singleplayer isn't that bad (I'm not saying it's good either), the multiplayer is just utter garbage. The balance between weapons is horrible, the constant lagging even with low ping makes the game unplayable, and there's almost nothing new compared to MW3. I guess it's safe to say that BO2 multiplayer is the worst CoD multiplayer of all time.
Now here's the best part of the game: Zombies!
This game would've received a 4 from me if they didn't include our smelly, screaming friends in the game.
The map, Green Run, is a giant map. That's why you travel around it by bus. There's also an easter egg "mission" to complete.… Expand
Nov 15, 2013I'm going to start this positively. It's a fun casual game to play for semi-long intervals, be it campaign or multiplayer. The campaign: The artwork is not GTAV or Shadow Of The Colossus good, but still amazing. It's bright and jumpy, unlike most CODs. The campaign has seen the debut of moral chooses, that permit 3 endings. These ending are wellish thought-out, with some minor flaws. This campaign is incredibly easy, and fairly stereotypical, it feels more like a point-roughly-at-the-enemy-and-click game. It has an OK amount of levels, and I haven't found any bugs, which I find surprising. Now, the multiplayer. Re-textured and partially re-animated MW2 but worse. The snipers feel OP as crap, the SMGs are almost dominant, LMGs are middle of the pack and the ARs are at the bottom. Only 1 shotgun is good, 1 is overpower, and 2 are The C4 is massively over-abused. It's basically the same thing as BO1 but retextured and made worse. I give this game a fairly goodish 69.7.… Expand
Nov 14, 2013Graphics: COD’s graphics are becoming outdated, they need a new engine, but at times they still look good. 8.0.
Sound: Realistic gun sound, voice actors are good, nothing to complain about. 10.
Gameplay: Shooting feels unrealistic, it’s like shooting at paper, multiplayer is the same as every year, shoot kill, respawn. Some of the new gadgets are interesting, and the futuristic weapons are nice. Even some new scripted elements are enjoyable. The levels are well structured and are fun to play, and the campaign does mix it up. Zombies are back which are always fun. Side missions are added in the campaigns which are similar to a strategy game, although you could take control of each squad. Besides the game feeling the same, it still fun, and it still works. 9.0.
Story: The story is retarded, skips from scene to scene, and leaves the player in confusion on how they can jump around like it’s a transitional music video. At first the game is interesting, but as it unfolds you quickly realize its attempt is stupid. There are different choices you can make throughout the game which effect the ending, but if you make the wrong choices your only left with plot holes, and annoyance at a horribly executed Call of Duty game. They tried to hard, and failed at it, also the developers lied about the game feeling like a sandbox and having the ability to fly around to missions, its all done in menu’s 6.5.
Lasting Appeal: Despite the retarded Hollywood action story, the game is still worth it with all the content. The season pass on the other hand is not, and you’re a ****ing moron if you buy the maps. Other season passes go for about 35 bucks, COD goes for 50 bucks, you Activision. They have discounted it from previous COD games where it would cost 60 bucks, so if you do get a hard on from COD map packs then go ahead and buy them. 10.
Overall Score: 8.7 out of 10.… Expand
Nov 8, 2013When Black Ops 2 came out in Nov. 2012, I remember watching a Youtube video where Tmartn was doing his review of the game and said “This is Black Ops 2?” over and over again during his commentary. One couldn’t help feeling a bit underwhelmed going into the game after all the hype about its new “pick ten” system that was going on pre-release. I believe that people were finally starting to realize that Call of Duty would never shock the world again like it did with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, even though you heard the same arguments over and over again after the release of each of the franchises subsequent installments, one still held on to hope that the next game would be groundbreaking. After playing Black Ops 2 (multiplayer) for a year now, I can tell you with confidence that this is a quality game. It never lived up to the hype that gave it, at the time, record breaking sales figures, but the game managed to hold its own regardless of these unrealistic expectations. Here are some reasons to like it:
1. You can run and gun! I can’t say this with enough excitement because campers will be shot in this game. The fact that the perk which lets players stay off the map, does not work if they are camping, is fantastic.
2. The pick ten system: Yes, it works, and it is a lot of fun.
3. Playing the objective is rewarded: I really liked playing domination because it was a thrill and lay on the B flag while people were shooting at me. If I got the cap, I also got two points towards my kill streak instead of one like in Infinity Ward games. If I killed someone while on the objective, I also got two points towards my next kill streak. Thus, more and more people were playing the objective instead of trying to be slayers. Which bring me to my next point…
4. The Scorestreak is better than the Pointstreak system: Each kill streak was worth a certain a number of points that a player earns through doing things in the game. For instance, a UAV is worth around 400 points. If you shoot down a UAV, you get 50 points, which is applied to the 400. Hence, you do not need to just kill stuff to get points toward your streaks. Assists are worth about half a kill which also apply and playing the objectives are more rewarding than ever before.
5. Small maps: You will be thankful for these maps after playing Call of Duty Ghosts. You can get on ton of kills on just about any map, and the action never stops. Regardless of what people say, the game rewards skill. Anyone can get a kill but only the best take home the leaderboard time and time again.
6. Score per minute is easily tracked: The game shifts the focus from KDR to SPM. I would keep an eye on my SPM after each match, trying just a bit harder the next game to get that number up a point as soon as I could. This leads to faster gameplay and less camping.
But the game is not without its flaws which are as follows:
1. Quick Scoping is easier than ever: After playing the game for a few months, I started noticing that more and more players were opting to “quick scope.” Toward the end of the season, it seemed that every match I was placed in was against a clan of “quick-scopers.” Kids were more interested in trying to get “quad feeds” with their sniper rifles than actually trying to play objectives. I can almost say that this wrecked the game (but didn’t) because swagger was taking precedence over substance.
2. You are still put into the worst games that the server could possibly find: Ever wanted to be placed into a match where you are losing 150-36, and half your team rage-quit because the other team has nine thousand kill streaks circling the air? Treyarch still think you do (but so does IW). I am a proponent for making enemies forfeit an easier option to come by, rather than punish people who were not responsible for the mess they just joined. If half a team leaves, there is usually a reason for it, so just give the winning team a “W” and move on.
3. Killstreaks are still OP: I can’t tell you how many times I was on a streak and some stupid hunter killer got me. You shouldn’t have to waste a perk to protect you from a low level kill streak.
So all in all, I would have to say that Black Ops two was a fun multiplayer experience, probably the best one since Cod4. I am not even going to compare the two games though because it is never fair to compare something to the original idea that started it all. However, Blops2 is a fun, fast paced action game that will keep you busy for hundreds of hours. 8/10 Great game.… Expand
Nov 23, 2012The Call Of Duty series of games polarize opinion these days, when we got Modern Warfare it changed FPS multilayer standards massively bringing on board a whole new generation of fans, people who never played the first 3 were well on board after its genre defining success. While the series has stuck rigidly to its scripted, shooting gallery single player since the first game its the multi-player changes of MW1 that really brought the series to the top of its tree. That was 2007, since then we've had 4 more COD games and according to many its the lack of change in the series that has brought the recent negativity around the series which started getting very noticeable with the MW3 release. Well i didn't buy MW3, the last one i had was Black Ops 1, my favourite of them all was World At War and i have to say that overall this is nothing new.
Firstly the campaign, yes it offers choices which are cool as they affect the ending, good idea. However the narrative, the actual missions themselves, for me its all so boring now. The story flicks between the 80's and 2025 and after few missions you really dont know why your doing anything or where you are. You just shoot hordes or re-spawning grunts until you pass a 'trigger' which progresses the action. Its uninspired and tedious, i was doing all this in COD1and i found it difficult to motivate myself to persist with it and its plethora of clichés and stereotypes.
The new Strike missions are supposed to introduce a limited 'strategy' element to the single player. You command some squads of troops, some drones etc. and can control from a command view. The big problem is that the AI of your forces is so bad that the only way to succeed is to personally take control of troops and basically do the job yourself, which means you just end up doing what you were doing in the main story missions but with no recognisable characters or reasons to care, and they were lacking enough in the first place.
Graphics and sound design is the same as before really, maybe a slight improvement but nothing to write home about, its good enough but i cant help but think its about time they introduced a significantly better graphics engine and stopped recycling the same textures and animations throughout every game.
The multi-player suite returns with zombies bolted on again. Zombies is improved with some new content, game modes and equipment which breathes some new life into it, but it does not retain the appeal it had when it was a completley new feature, it doesn't feel that they innovated enough to me. They have tried to improve it no doubt but its not as exciting as it was, largely due to the fact its nothing new. Its functional and fun though and can still be a good blast with friends.
As for the multi-player? Well its COD's bread and butter right? Its not evolved much at all.The introduction of the ten point system is good but hardly warrants the buy alone, score streaks over kill-streaks? Not really a big change, you still need to stay alive as with a kill-streak so same principles.
The action is fast paced as usual, reliant on fast-twitch reactions more than tactics. Still no destructible environments or vehicles. Same game modes bar hard point which is a poor version of headquarters for me. Domination is the most fun but overall its all the same stuff as before, same animations, same graphics, same game. League play is a nice addition for those willing to invest the time and not addicted to unlocks and levelling up.
Having really enjoyed the open environments and more warfare like BF3 multi-player i cant help but feel restricted and confined by COD (and i'm a fan of both series), they really need to freshen it up, it feels recycled and cheap. It wouldn't be overly harsh to say its BLOPS1 with a map pack, weapons pack, few new game modes and a little bit of polish. If you want more of the same then you wont go wrong, if you were looking for further evolution in the COD series the you'll need a time machine, the year 2007 and MW1 because that's where it remains.
Disappointing. 5/10… Collapse
Jan 22, 2013This is not to say it's a bad game, it's just not different enough from previous Call of Duty titles. The story isn't memorable, the maps and weapons aren't any different to what we've previously experienced, the gameplay is near identical to previous games, and when it's not identical it falls flat and fails to impress.
Jan 7, 2013If the original Black Ops was Treyarch's coming-out party, then Black Ops 2 is the studio's affirmation that their COD expertise was no flash in the pan. If you're one of the 16 people who hasn't played this gem yet, go buy it now. Conversely, if you're among those who bought the game but hasn't ventured into the single-player campaign (yes, it happens), there's a great narrative and divergent gameplay awaiting your experimentation, so check it out.