• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Black Ops II official site is up

Orayn

Member
I really hope they pull something more interesting than another 'future Russia vs US vs China cold war scenario'...

I don't know, I'm just a little tired of all that.

Unfortunately, creativity in the Call of Duty series seems to be a fluke rather than any sort of tradition.
 
COD REALLY needs to make the campaign 30 FPS and do a graphics overhaul.

I mean, I used to play the COD campaigns even though they suck (generally I dont do multiplayer in any game), at least the game was pretty. But after BF3 this year, it really looked dated.

I understood them sticking with 60 FPS, as long as the sales were out of this world, why fix what aint broken? But now that sales have taken a small hit, now is the time...
 
I understood them sticking with 60 FPS, as long as the sales were out of this world, why fix what aint broken? But now that sales have taken a small hit, now is the time...

I think you should consider what a 'small hit' in sales means for CoD-numbers :D. These games continue to make a profit that is out of this world, there is no way Activision is revamping it. Maybe on the next-gen systems...

I dare to state that the CoD-audience at large doesn't care as much about graphical fidelity.
 
COD REALLY needs to make the campaign 30 FPS and do a graphics overhaul.

I mean, I used to play the COD campaigns even though they suck (generally I dont do multiplayer in any game), at least the game was pretty. But after BF3 this year, it really looked dated.

I understood them sticking with 60 FPS, as long as the sales were out of this world, why fix what aint broken? But now that sales have taken a small hit, now is the time...

You don't play multiplayer, you thought the campaigns sucked, but still played the "game" just because it was pretty? Lol.

And sales have taken a small hit, what?
 

Yuripaw

Banned
I am surprised that Treyarch first took the jump to the future and not IW.

I'm not...Treyarch has shown that they're the developer willing to take a risk and try something new with the franchise. I don't really like CoD much, but I do think Black Ops 1 was probably the best the series has been.
 

SpeedNut

Member
I definitely thought the next IW CoD would have been the one to jump the future shark. I mean, this does bring up the question of where next year's title will go? Black Ops definitely could have milked the cold war secret ops sort of deal for another game. Does the next go future too? Well that's kind of dumb. Does it go back to the past? Redundant. Does it stay where it's at? Stagnant. I have a feeling Call of Duty/Activision has milked itself into a corner.

The only conceivable option I can think of is... SPACE!

OR Civil War maybe? For your "killstreak perk" would be canister shells for the cannons? Wouldn't sell well other than for a gimmick, but then again annual franchises eventually rely on those to sell.
 
Wouldn't be the biggest COD fan, played through all the SP and dabbed into the MP now and then.

Liked how BLOPS tried to change things up a little bit from Modern Warfare and enjoyed that MP alot more than the Modern Warfare offerings.

As someone said, feels like Treyarch try to bring the series forward a bit more than IW, so hopefully this will be good. They have my interest anyway, will follow news on this one.
 
img5051_010ybwx.jpg


img5051_02cubwk.jpg


img5032_0233lhi.jpg
Dammit, are these screens real? I'm a sucker for sci-fi so it might pique my interest. Though if this is too "near future" then I could probably ignore it.

Why must every futuristic game either be an extremely near future where not much has changed or a far off future where our rate of technological increase plummets? I want more *pew pew* dammit!
 

gogojira

Member
Not even going to lie, I'm back on board after skipping over MW3. I know it's still going to be Call of Duty, but at least they mixed up the look (which is even more shocking considering the name).
 

hamchan

Member
COD REALLY needs to make the campaign 30 FPS and do a graphics overhaul.

I mean, I used to play the COD campaigns even though they suck (generally I dont do multiplayer in any game), at least the game was pretty. But after BF3 this year, it really looked dated.

I understood them sticking with 60 FPS, as long as the sales were out of this world, why fix what aint broken? But now that sales have taken a small hit, now is the time...

Well if we're comparing campaigns now then BF3 had a really terrible campaign compared to the normal CoD offering.
 

CorrisD

badchoiceboobies
COD REALLY needs to make the campaign 30 FPS and do a graphics overhaul.

I mean, I used to play the COD campaigns even though they suck (generally I dont do multiplayer in any game), at least the game was pretty. But after BF3 this year, it really looked dated.

I understood them sticking with 60 FPS, as long as the sales were out of this world, why fix what aint broken? But now that sales have taken a small hit, now is the time...

I'd rather they didn't, with the next-generation of consoles on the horizon I would prefer they put work into getting ready for them with an engine that can be sustained properly than trying to get better graphics out of what they have already.

Some people can't see the difference, but I personally love how smooth CoD has been with keeping it at 60FPS and it would be a damn shame if they went against that in the game of graphics.
 

Jb

Member
image.php


But can't be Russia/China/Nazis/Terrorists again. Can it?

It's never been China. Even though it's the most likely adversary the US would fight against if a WW broke out. Game devs don't have a lot of balls, so they stick to Russia/terrorists/NK.
 
It's never been China. Even though it's the most likely adversary the US would fight against if a WW broke out. Game devs don't have a lot of balls, so they stick to Russia/terrorists/NK.

I know but since Homefront did that last year. I decided to throw it in because Treyarch aren't that big of copycats. At least i hope not.
 
Well if we're comparing campaigns now then BF3 had a really terrible campaign compared to the normal CoD offering.
BF3 had some cool "gimmick" moments though. I'm not gonna lie, I felt like a bad ass when my jet took off and again when I sky dived into the battlefield. But after the novelty wore off there was nothing there.
 

BurntPork

Banned
Well the Wii U is a little different though. Wii and 3DS were always watered down ports with subpar graphics. At least with the Wii U, they could make the same experience. I just don't really see the selling point on the Wii U. No one's gonna buy that system for CoD...but I wouldn't buy it for most of the games they revealed last year since I already got systems capable of playing said games. (batman AC, battlefield 3, and darksiders 2)
The flipside is that porting it would be cheap, especially compared to making the Wii version. They really don't have much to lose, but they have a lot to gain from establishing the series on the platform early on if it takes off. No risk, high return. There are good arguments both ways.

Someone will ask in an interview this week, anyway.
 
It's never been China. Even though it's the most likely adversary the US would fight against if a WW broke out. Game devs don't have a lot of balls, so they stick to Russia/terrorists/NK.

I so want to it to be China, just once, lets pop that cherry.
 

EYEL1NER

Member
I'm trying to understand the people who recognise Black Ops had a bad campaign but somehow know this sequel will be better just because of a different setting. Those people who go to CoD for the single-player, instead of straight to MP.

It'll still be the same whack-a-mole shooting gallery with some scripted moments where all the budget went to. Do you think they'll change up the formula with their gameplay for the campaign? CoD has been as predictable as an annual sports game franchise.
I don't care if they do or not, because I enjoyed the hell out of the BlOps campaign. It was certainly better than the MW2, MW3, and Battlefield 3 campaigns, and on par with, if not slightly better than, Medal of Honor. I guess I would give it the nod over MoH.
A lot of people never even touch the campaign modes in CoD games; I finish the campaign before I even start multiplayer. It's just a hold-over from the period where I didn't play multiplayer games online for about 3 years or so (with the exception of MW2. I never even got to play W@W online).

They aren't some deep games with AAA stories, but I like them for what they are, the same as I liked The Expendables. It's just a couple hours of action, which I sometimes need. The Halo games are too far and few between, so other FPS games have to fill the void (but I am not trying to claim Halo games have the best stories or anything either. I just like the series the best of all the console FPS's out there).

So yeah, I liked the BlOps campaign a lot. And I am looking forward to the Black Ops 2 campaign. I am going to run through it as soon as I get it. And then play the multiplayer, because I will need to rid myself of the memories of atrocious IW-designed MW3 maps.
 

Kinyou

Member
Dammit, are these screens real? I'm a sucker for sci-fi so it might pique my interest. Though if this is too "near future" then I could probably ignore it.

Why must every futuristic game either be an extremely near future where not much has changed or a far off future where our rate of technological increase plummets? I want more *pew pew* dammit!
Yeah, I actually want a real future CoD, not just half future. I want laserguns, mechs, zero-g space missions... all the good stuff.
 

Sojgat

Member
I like COD multi from time to time, but I hate the singleplayer campaigns, It's like they just took the "wall of sound" technique and applied it to everything.
 

S1kkZ

Member
You know all the games use the Quake III engine right?

not really. q3 engine was the base, but that was a long time ago. treyarch and iw use different versions of the engine. they started with the mw1 engine and developed on their own.
 

MajorPain

Member
COD REALLY needs to make the campaign 30 FPS and do a graphics overhaul.

I mean, I used to play the COD campaigns even though they suck (generally I dont do multiplayer in any game), at least the game was pretty. But after BF3 this year, it really looked dated.

I understood them sticking with 60 FPS, as long as the sales were out of this world, why fix what aint broken? But now that sales have taken a small hit, now is the time...

I think COD campaigns are the best BF3 may look great but the campaign sucks.
 
R

Rösti

Unconfirmed Member
Darker version of the cover artwork: http://callofduty.com/etc/designs/callofduty/img/blackops2/bg_body.jpg
Lighter version of the cover artwork: http://callofduty.com/etc/designs/callofduty/img/blackops2/home/bg_home.jpg

This strikes me as nothing special, at least if the game is only available for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. If a PC version or Wii U version will be made available I might raise an eyebrow, but as it is now it's just more of the same to me. I find those helicopters in the images Goldrusher posted quite laughable, they look like flying, deformed bicycles.
 
Top Bottom