|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 4.2Nov 16, 2012I've never posted a review on Metacritic before, but felt compelled to after seeing so many troll/bad user reviews. It's one thing to play aI've never posted a review on Metacritic before, but felt compelled to after seeing so many troll/bad user reviews. It's one thing to play a game, review it objectively, and give it a low rating. It's another to rate a game a 0 or 1 without even playing it.
It boggles the mind how people complain about how the game "hasn't changed" yet the very first aspect they criticize following this statement is "teh engine/graphics are the same!!11" People need to understand that a new graphics engine does NOT equal new gameplay. Medal of Honor: Warfighter has arguably the best graphics engine on the market right now (frostbite 2), yet the gameplay is incredibly dull and dated (aside from the car missions that I felt were neat).
Now before playing a Call of Duty game, a prerequisite is required. By now, most people have played a CoD title at one point or another. You know the formula. So you can't rate the game low for being what it is: a highly scripted, fast-paced, blockbuster shooter. It's like giving Madden a 0 for being too much of a Madden game. It is what it is. CoD is NOT Battlefield, not Rainbow Six/GRAW, and it's not Brothers in Arms. If you go in expecting to fight in environments in size similar to Battlefield 3, expect to drive any vehicle you see in the map, or expect to micromanage your squad, you will be sorely disappointed.
If you play Black Ops 2 expecting the same formula of Black Ops 1 (or MW3 for that matter, although that was developed by a different studio), you will be VERY pleasantly surprised. BO2 brings many new appreciated changes such as allowing you to customize your loadout before each mission (like primary weapon, secondary, attachments, grenades, and even perks), strike missions, and alternate story choices and endings. And in Call of Duty fashion, this is all tied together in a campaign that features a great score, compelling characters, excellent voice acting, superb facial animation, and thrilling scripted events all running at 60 fps.
This time around, I really feel like they've struck a great balance between a compelling linear story line and player choice, both affecting gameplay (like loadouts and access to certain equipment and routes in the environment) and story (alternate choices and endings). Would I like more room to perform flanking maneuvers? Sure. But no CoD game in the series have ever really given me that, so I didn't expect it in this one and I won't fault it for that. Again, It think it's unfair to fault a game for not being what you want it to be. I can't fault CoD for not being more like Brothers in Arms. It would be the equivalent of faulting Gran Turismo for not being more open like Midnight Club Racers. Gran Turismo is not that kind of game and it would be unfair to judge it that way. GT must be reviewed as a circuit racer, just like CoD needs to be reviewed as a linear shooter with the likes of Homefront, Crysis 2, and Medal of Honor. That fact that Black Ops 2 offers alternate endings, optional missions, and custom loadouts earns it a lot of credit and differentiates Black Ops 2 from the "on-rails" shooter genre.
I agree when people say "vote with your wallet." For me, I love the new changes to the Black Ops 2 campaign and have voted "Yes."… Expand