• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Call of Duty:Black Ops Declassified (Gamescom 2012)

Wow I'm sad... Resistance was terribad, so I've got no hope for this game.

Unless this system starts getting some games that I'm looking forward to it's not looking like I'm going to hang onto it much longer...
 
so uhm....as one of the few people on the globe that plays cod mostly for the single player (battlefielder here),does this have some sort of story campaign?or is it just like the spec ops missions?

i liked burning skies btw
 
so uhm....as one of the few people on the globe that plays cod mostly for the single player (battlefielder here),does this have some sort of story campaign?or is it just like the spec ops missions?

i liked burning skies btw
Nobody knows yet. The trailer says "Covert missions" and the Walmart listing says Spec Ops missions or something, but nobody knows at this point.
 
How can you actually get an FPS so wrong? I mean, with the amount of FPS out there, it should be the easiest to get to a decent level. This looks really bad
 
Did you play through Burning Skies?
I played through the demo twice - it was completely underwhelming, which might not be the fairest impression given it was just a demo.. but the bad reviews stopped me buying it. I was super hyped for it and impressions here were generally horrible. Again, another wasted opportunity.

Anyway - I don't want to be shitting on people's hard work, as I get the impression both these games are/were rushed out.
 
I played through the demo twice - it was completely underwhelming, which might not be the fairest impression given it was just a demo.. but the bad reviews stopped me buying it. I was super hyped for it and impressions here were generally horrible. Again, another wasted opportunity.

Anyway - I don't want to be shitting on people's hard work, as I get the impression both these games are/were rushed out.
The full game was better than the demo. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a 9, but it was fun enough, especially for a handheld FPS. The worst part imo was the lack of mp modes. But to each his own, I wouldn't spend my money on something I didn't enjoy either.
 
The trailer, the developer's track record, and the MSRP all reason enough to shit on this. Even if Nihislitc gets the feeling of CoD right the multiplayer is only 4v4 and the game is still $50. What... the fuck.
 
I was disappointed that Resistance: Burning Skies only topped out at 8 players. I thought they should have aimed for at least 16 players.

Now this game is announced, from the same developer, and its...8 players max.

I know people are bagging on Nihilistic, but (at least from what I played of the demo) Resistance: Burning Skies seemed decent and had excellent controls. The underlying engine is good from a technical standpoint. It just needs better designers and a much more robust multiplayer (with more & better gameplay modes).

I wouldn't mind Nihilistic's involvement, if only there was a more ambitious effort behind it. The video they've shown of this game doesn't look appealing. I'm not a Call of Duty player as it stands now, and this video doesn't inspire me to make this game my launching point into the series.

Well there are only 8 people that bought a VITA, so it doesn't make sense to have it any higher.

OK, I have to admit that was a good one.
 
Everything about the reveal leading to this full unveiling spelled doom. A logo? Nothing else? They were too ashamed to show it off before. Killzone Vita shits all over this, as others have said.
 
History showed that they have dropped the ball on all portable versions of COD though and this was brought up multiple times in previous threads.

OK, look...

A) The DS games are pretty good and technologically impressive (especially for how shitty most other non-2D DS games were) and sold strong enough to continue producing titles, also strong enough in sales to continue packing in features like online play which could have been cut if it didn't pay off;

B) The iOS mini-game was fun and got Activision a little fanfare in the portable market (whereas with the DS games they didn't even acknowledge that they existed... there's a COD:BO2 listed with some retailers for DS but we don't even know if it's real yet);

C) Activision has now taken up prime time at three major SCE conferences (at E3 2011 they announced it, E3 this year they gave the name, now GamesCon they finally showed it as the capper product of an amazing show.) They have also worked out a deal with Sony to make this a bundled console release.

Even with the disappointing early start of the Vita market, it'd be in Activision's best interests to create a worthwhile product. I don't think it's silly that even savvy gamers thought the company would rise to the opportunity (especially since many of us guessed the Vita release would be on the real COD engine ala AC3 Liberation, as that could have been an easy way to get a nice little portable side-project off the ground quickly that could live up to the hype of "a true Call of Duty experience".)

Ayway - I don't want to be shitting on people's hard work, as I get the impression both these games are/were rushed out.

I don't necessarily hold it against the artists when a game is weak since there are a ton of factors that affect how it comes out. I do hold it as an indicator of whether I should buy their next product though. Some studios are art-based, some are job-driven, and each product asks for different levels of attention. Nihilistic is one of these workhorse companies that takes shorter jobs and lower budgets and constantly has multiple plates spinning, and that works out for some companies... but going by everything they've done before, this isn't one of those companies that can handle the pressure of managing expectations.
 
Ehm, it's not Sony's game?


They did achieve that by cutting of a lot of the animations (which were sub-par to begin with) still a fun game though. Anyway I don't think it's due to technical limitations, it could just not be realized within the dev time/budget which was probably heavily constrained.
Are we assuming they didn't start development until RE shipped? If so, yes, that would be a very short dev cycle.
 
4 v 4 multiplayer is the biggest dissapoint for a game all about the multiplayer. Curious how they designed the maps and modes with so few players.

Graphics are very bland, and not just because they go for the realistic brown look. The overall presentation of Killzone looks much better to me. Come on, the Vita is such a powerhouse! Use that power!

It was such an easy thing to do right... After all this time how does the pioneer of the streamlined fps experience screw up this badly?
 
People better be praying for a bunch of nuketown clones. Anything bigger and it will feel like a ghost town.
 
That is probably because people thought that Activision wouldn't drop the ball on a revered franchise. I was looking forward to it. The footage and the dev's history has now made me rethink my stance.

Activision doesn't really care about the portable versions though, they've always farmed them out to cheap handheld studios (Amaze Entertainment and n-Space) rather than developing them in-house.

No. No company just hands over the rights to their biggest IP to another publisher to go crazy with it. Very Far fetched to believe that Sony and Act have that kind of relationship.

I don't think it's far-fetched to assume this game was the result of moneyhats.

Activision was never a big supporter of the PSP - they released a single CoD game for PSP all the way back in 2007 (compared to like five or six CoD games on DS). Then all of a sudden they're the very first game announced exclusively for Sony's next portable and the Activision guy is brought on stage to spout off Sony PR hyperbole like "NGP will change the way people play games on the go". And Sony treats CoD Vita as their key release during every keynote (even when they only had a logo to show on-screen at E3) and now there's a holiday bundle for it too.

Obviously this is just speculation and there's no way to prove it, but I'm fairly certain Sony is footing the bill for this game. Activision has nothing to lose if Sony handles all the development and marketing, it's free money for them.
 
I'm sorry Shuhei Yoshida, if this is your idea of saving Vita with a mediocre developer for COD. You seriously need to reevaluate your thinking.
 
I'm sorry Shuhei Yoshida, if this is your idea of saving Vita with a mediocre developer for COD. You seriously need to reevaluate your thinking.

I think Yoshida is troller, but I don't think it's a wise idea to insult his intelligence. No one in their sane mind would think COD made by nihilistic would save vita.
 
If you want a more damning example, Medal of Honor: Heroes on the PSP had 32-person multiplayer back in 2006.
Come to think of it, why does the Wii version only have 5vs5? The Wii is clearly much more powerful than the PSP. The Wii version runs at 30fps too, so it is not related to keeping the game at 60fps. I wonder what technical stuff that makes these choices. Still pity about 4vs4 though :\


Really?

Hype completely killed. I could get by the bad visuals but Nhilistic... really?
"Going by this thread" = speculations being done :) Could be true or false, i guess we'll never know for sure.


I've played through that game 3 times, I didn't find one bit of it even remotely close to awful. Also, Burning Skies was decent, but I played through it twice, not sure about you.
Same here, was wondering about that too. Beaten Uncharted 3 about 3-4 times and cant think of any aweful parts, so i'm curious what he means about a lot of aweful aspects.


Obviously this is just speculation and there's no way to prove it, but I'm fairly certain Sony is footing the bill for this game. Activision has nothing to lose if Sony handles all the development and marketing, it's free money for them.
If Sony pays for all this, i guess they should be listed as the publisher. I guess we will know soon enough when the game comes out who the publisher is.
 
It looks like they took levels and assets from Black Ops (seems like there's nothing from BLOPS2), scaled it back massively and shoved it onto the Vita.

If you told me this was a 3DS game, I'd be somewhat unimpressed. The animations are particularly bad, seemingly worse than the DS games as someone said earlier.
 
Activision was never a big supporter of the PSP - they released a single CoD game for PSP all the way back in 2007 (compared to like five or six CoD games on DS). Then all of a sudden they're the very first game announced exclusively for Sony's next portable and the Activision guy is brought on stage to spout off Sony PR hyperbole like "NGP will change the way people play games on the go". And Sony treats CoD Vita as their key release during every keynote (even when they only had a logo to show on-screen at E3) and now there's a holiday bundle for it too.

I get what you're saying, but FYI, Activision one of the early primary supporters of PSP actually, with Spider-Man and THUG Remix as launch titles followed not much later by X-Men Legends and some other launch-era titles (and all abided the exclusivity rules.) There are over 30 PSP games from them on the market, that's decent support (even if faith in the system clearly diminished visibly, to the point where COD games kept being made for DS but only the one WWII game was made for PSP.) Even as the system was on its knees outside of Japan, the company still released versions of Spider-Man Web of Shadows and Transformers Revenge of the Fallen for it.

Given its PSP support, I don't see why it's unreasonable to think that Activision might put some effort into finding footing on Vita, especially since it now understands how budgets and consumer trends work on portable platforms in this market sector and also since there's the possibility of reusing asset/engine work of the console productions. (Plus, they can always turn around and re-sell the game as a PSN/XBLA download a year or so later if there's demand.) Activision would know how much to put into a Vita version and how much it'd get out of it, and couple that with the Sony backing and the hype that this game has drawn up for over a year, there'd be reason for the company not to cut corners. But, they did.

4 v 4 multiplayer is the biggest dissapoint for a game all about the multiplayer. Curious how they designed the maps and modes with so few players.

As disappointing as that is for such a high-profile Vita release, that's one area I'm allowing some understanding. Maybe they ran into technical difficulties (though as people have pointed out, PSP did much, much more,) but it could also be that the designers intentionally focused on a fast-match-up, low-drop-out, pick-up-and-play shooter experience. You can put as many players into an online game as your engine will allow, but if it ain't fun, it ain't good. I don't understand why they'd make that choice (don't bragging rights and bullet points mean something to a dev when you're working on a launch-year product?), but if Nihilistic feels it can make a better game 4v4 (I don't see any Resistance reviews that agree...) and is designing maps/loadout specifically around that player count for maximum fun, more power to them.
 
With the talk about the possibility that this project might be funded or handled by Sony,I guess this explain why Gearbox wanted Sony to port Borderland 2.
 
If Sony pays for all this, i guess they should be listed as the publisher. I guess we will know soon enough when the game comes out who the publisher is.

Not necessarily. Those five Sega exclusives that Microsoft paid for on the original Xbox (JSRF, Panzer Dragoon Orta, SegaGT '02, etc) were all published under Sega if I recall correctly.

In situations like this they'd want to keep it quiet, it looks kinda desperate when it's necessary to pay for support. And then if word gets out about it, every other publisher would be wanting a similar deal where they'd get to have no risk but all the reward (like Randy Pitchford/Gearbox wanting Sony to port Borderlands 2 for them as mentioned above).
 
Completely uninterested if it doesnt have 3G multiplayer, yeah I know the technology is not there yet, but I can't see the appeal of this game if you need to be within range of Wi-Fi, why not just play a console game then?

Because free wifi is pretty much all over.
 
Because free wifi is pretty much all over.
Maybe in the US, not here in Germany though. Anyway if people are desperate about playing this over 3G (have fun, lulz) just hook it up to your smartphone hotspot, much better choice to begin with.

Are we assuming they didn't start development until RE shipped? If so, yes, that would be a very short dev cycle.
Probably started earlier, but seeing the trailer and assuming they use the same engine it doesn't look like it had a lot of time in the oven.

Come to think of it, why does the Wii version only have 5vs5? The Wii is clearly much more powerful than the PSP. The Wii version runs at 30fps too, so it is not related to keeping the game at 60fps. I wonder what technical stuff that makes these choices. Still pity about 4vs4 though :\.
MoH:H2 on Wii had 32 players as well, like I said not a technical limitation probably.

Going by this thread it appears Sony put their own guys on it because Activision wouldn't touch it.
I just hope you don't believe that. Plus afaik Sony holds no stock in Nihilistic. Going by Wiki Activision even worked with them before.
 
I seriously hope this was a good effort and not started immediately after Burning Skies. The gameplay looked smoother (and sounded better) than the trailer for Burning Skies we saw in May.

Also, 4v4 is not terrible for a handheld game. If that maps are the right size, it will be fun. Throw in maps from BO1 like Firing Range and Launch and we would have to see 5v5 or possibly 6v6.
 
I think Sony should have set up a studio specifically for helping devs port their games to the Vita. You don't want to do it? We will.

Thank you for this. Vita looks (and hopefully plays) miles better than the Wii version.

I'm not even convinced that it looks that much better than the wii version but maybe I'm crazy. I'd certainly take an up port of the Wii version of Blops with the full multiplayer over declassified, and I'm sure most other people would as well.

Hopefully declassified is just being put out there to have something, and there are plans for more comprehensive support in the future.

I have MW Trilogy, BlOps 1&2 and WaW, this looks like a poor downscale, just to play on the move.

I'll pass thanks.

If it had been just the Blops2 multiplayer, or straight port of the upcoming blops 2, would you have been more likely to get it?
 
I'm not even convinced that it looks that much better than the wii version but maybe I'm crazy. I'd certainly take an up port of the Wii version of Blops with the full multiplayer over declassified, and I'm sure most other people would as well.

Hopefully declassified is just being put out there to have something, and there are plans for more comprehensive support in the future.

You can't see the difference? The Wii version is a low res. texture, overly bright mess. Declassified seems to replicate the atmosphere of the 360 and PS3 versions much better.
 
Mildly interested. I bought and played Resistance: Burning Skies, and while it wasn't awful, it just screamed of average. It didn't help that the campaign was super short and for the first two days the game was out, connecting to multiplayer games was pretty much broken. Finally, considering this is 4v4 just like Resistance, I I can't help but feel like it's going to be just the Resistance game reskinned with CoD weapons. One nice thing is that it looks like there's less of a focus on mandatory touchscreen elements, which was a big annoyance of mine for Resistance
 
There's really no reason to think this game would look better if Treyarch made it. There has been one dual analog FPS on a handheld ever, and it was made by this studio. There has only been one FPS ever on the Vita, and it was made by this studio.

Unit 13?

And, for that matter, what about comparing it with RE: Mercenaries 3D? Sure, it's not dual analog, but that's a semantic argument anyway. It may well have more variety of content, but that's not actually all that clear from the promotional video thus far. Blops *ought* to knock Mercenaries into a cocked hat, and I'm not convinced it does. It *may* be doing more than Mercenaries, we'll have to see about that.
 
If it had been just the Blops2 multiplayer, or straight port of the upcoming blops 2, would you have been more likely to get it?
No, I'd just get the full fat version. I was hoping for something a little different ala KZ Liberation, not the same game we've had already, just with worse graphics. Seems a little pointless.

It's more that a CoD player has so many options, that unless you only own a Vita, why would you choose an inferior version? Of course, some fans just can't get enough, fair play I say.
 
This game could do more harm than good. Sony should've teamed up with EA and try to bring a competent Battlefield: BC game instead. The brand power is similar to COD (over 15M units worldwide).

Regarding the 4x4 multiplayer. Makes complete sense for a launch year FPS with hardware that has had poor penetration into the market. Anything more than 4x4 may have resulted in scenarios where it is difficult to find online games.
 
Playing the demo of Burning Skies and god damn is the sound design and sound effects horrible. Nihilistic should be ashamed for thinking that crap can pass.

Hire someone competent for sound design for crying out loud.

This does not make me optimistic for BLOPS Vita.
 
Was kinda interested in this but when I saw the trailer, I admit, I was reeling from how bad it was. Maps looked sparse, shooting looked like it was straight from a mobile/tablet game.

So, should EA jump at the chance and do a Battlefield PS Vita game? Though I honestly don't know if it could work.

PS Vita desperately needs a CoD or BF game to pump sales and Sony knows it.
 
Why is everyone acting like Burning Skies was an awful game? The multiplayer was pretty fun despite being only 4v4, and I still jump in from time to time. They didn't do such a bad job with it, and they'll probably do pretty well with this.
 
Unit 13?

And, for that matter, what about comparing it with RE: Mercenaries 3D? Sure, it's not dual analog, but that's a semantic argument anyway. It may well have more variety of content, but that's not actually all that clear from the promotional video thus far. Blops *ought* to knock Mercenaries into a cocked hat, and I'm not convinced it does. It *may* be doing more than Mercenaries, we'll have to see about that.
Unit 13 isn't a first person shooter.

There isn't anything semantic about the concept of dual analog first person shooters. Semantic would be arguing between dual analog sticks and dual analog slidepads, not dual analog sticks and inherently different interfaces.

That GIF people are posting alone blows Mercs away to me, so I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page on where the product even is today, let alone when it ships.

I wish I could play Resistance so I could just see for myself how it compares to a console shooter.
 
Top Bottom