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.