Call of Duty: Black ops II
Discussion
I mentioned before about Blops2 might well be a last chance saloon for the franchise. Whichever way you look at it, MW3 wasn't a good game. Sales figures be as they might, the online community wanted progression from the series, and it seems to have gone back in time more than anything. Blops1 (IMO) feels a lot more stable & consistent. I tried Battlefield 3, but I really couldn't get into it, I'm just not a tactical kind of player when it comes to FPS. I tend to run about like a crazed rabies ridden, tourettes affected squirrel with an ACR. CoD is better for that sort of thing.
Some of the new kit in Blops2 looks quite cool (different, maybe not better, just a step sideways).
Multiplayer zombies and some anti-camper weapons might well be the saviour of the series, only time will tell.
Some of the new kit in Blops2 looks quite cool (different, maybe not better, just a step sideways).
Multiplayer zombies and some anti-camper weapons might well be the saviour of the series, only time will tell.
r1ch said:
I wouldn't have thought so. It's still got to be the biggest selling console game.
I probably should have explained a bit more, I meant from the point of view that many players aren't really looking forward to Blops2, with MW3 having put them off with all the lag compensation, matchmaking, hit detection and noob tube issues. Admittedly, they could afford to lose millions of players and it wouldn't make a dent in Activision's profit margin, but you cant help but feel they're running out of new ideas, but at the same time, the old skool lot would settle for any kind of CoD that had rock steady consistency online (maybe that's just me).As it stands, I'll be waiting by the letter box on the 13th, having booked the day off - I haven't given up on it all yet
Allaloneatron said:
Guv.. and I thought you hated BF3?
Whatever gave you that idea? I think it's the best military FPS I've played since Cod4, I'm just a bit bored of it now after playing it solidly for almost a year. However I am getting bored with FPS's period at the moment as IMO, nothing has been released since BF3 which has brought anything new to the party. Hopefully blops 2 will re-ignite my interest but at the moment I am sceptical.Guvernator said:
Lol, you really haven't played much BF3 have you? You can't really camp for too long in BF3 as you'll soon get taken out by a helicopter or driven over by a tank which comes through the wall or the building you are in will be C4'd to the ground, something that would come as a complete shock to the hundreds of "corner campers" I used to see all the time in MW3. BF3 games are often orders of magnitude more frantic then CoD games simply due to the amount that is going on.
I was brought up on CoD, been playing it since the first one but the CoD gameplay has been well and truly left behind by games like BF3 with it's almost infinite variations of how you can play rather than just the standard run and gun gameplay. I really hope they pull something out of the bag to close the gap in this latest CoD as the after half a dozen iterations of the same thing, it is becoming very stale.
From what i have seen (not plaied it to be fair), Bf 3 is just not the same intensity as COD. Yeah you can blow buildings up and drive stuff about, but its not raw gun on gun aspect form what i have seen and heard. I was brought up on CoD, been playing it since the first one but the CoD gameplay has been well and truly left behind by games like BF3 with it's almost infinite variations of how you can play rather than just the standard run and gun gameplay. I really hope they pull something out of the bag to close the gap in this latest CoD as the after half a dozen iterations of the same thing, it is becoming very stale.
For example last night i was lucky enough (and it was luck) to get a MOAB on MW3. It was probably down to the team i was palying with, a half decent internet connection to the host (for once) and a little bit of skill (i dont have much). but towards the end you are franticly trying to survie let alone kill anyone!
Same gose for other game types (think MITD when your the Jug). I see them being much more intense. Even if you are camping your arse off people figure out where you are and will come hunting you down. and its that instant bang your dead and now your back in thick of it. You dont have to spend minuets running back to the front line to get back to it.
Then there is the time thing. If good games of Dom on MW3 last more than 10 min you start to get sloppy. You cant focus solidly for that long. That to me clearly shows which is the most intence game.
Also the kill streacks or point streaks give you a drive to actually stay alive for a while. You stop being canon fodder and start trying to work as a team and hord people into corners and dominate.
As said i haven't plaied BF3 and have only had second hand info and watched vids on line. But this is the feeling i picked up on and dont like it compeard to the COD type games. I accept that diffrent people like different things and thats fine. Maybe i will give BF3 a go and then can give better feedback.
Chris.
Question for you all then, where would you like to see FPS game going? How canthey move them on? Rather than slagging them off lets pickl the best bits form what we have now and think of new and intresting ideas.
I have thought about this and struglled to see where you can go. Maybe its bigger and bigger maps (BF3), maybe its more personal 2v2 games. maybe its a move back to basics?
I have thought about this and struglled to see where you can go. Maybe its bigger and bigger maps (BF3), maybe its more personal 2v2 games. maybe its a move back to basics?
Close Quarters gives BF3 more COD style gameplay. But nothing in COD gives it BF3 style gameplay. I used to say the same about perferring COD to BF, but lately I just cant. BF3 gives such a varied gameplay style - sit back and help tactically with guidance and targetting aids, strafe a mountain with a chopper, or get up close and personal C4'ing tanks or play some Close Quarters for insane quick combat. Then get creative and jihad tanks with C4 Quadbikes.
chuntington101 said:
Question for you all then, where would you like to see FPS game going? How canthey move them on? Rather than slagging them off lets pickl the best bits form what we have now and think of new and intresting ideas.
I have thought about this and struglled to see where you can go. Maybe its bigger and bigger maps (BF3), maybe its more personal 2v2 games. maybe its a move back to basics?
Difficult to say really, some people obviously prefer the quicker run and gun style gameplay of CoD and I do agree it's fun if you just want to pick up and play for an hour, however for me this type of gameplay has been done to death for over 2 decades since Quake came along and I'd just like to see them mix it up a bit. They need to offer both types of gameplay in the same game i.e. run and gun and tactical play to appeal to a wider audience . CoD4 did this brilliantly but it seems each iteration since seems to have moved further away from that fine balance into the realm of "CoD on Acid". In their bid to go bigger and better they've lost the core gameplay balance, chasing bigger and more ludicrous killstreaks isn't the answer IMO and isn't what kept be coming back to Cod4 for 2 years.I have thought about this and struglled to see where you can go. Maybe its bigger and bigger maps (BF3), maybe its more personal 2v2 games. maybe its a move back to basics?
I actually think the actual controls and shooting mechanic is better in CoD than rival FPS's. It's quicker, feels tighter and more responsive The most important thing they need to get right is the maps. IMO the reason why CoD4 was so good was the maps were so finely balanced. In the newer ones they've made them too claustrophobic, too cluttered needlessly blocking lines of sight etc by adding extra scenery\graphic detail which just ends up getting in the way. Not being able to shoot someone because a small box\leaf is in the way (nice though they may look) is frustrating and often makes the games devolve into ultra close combat which is fun for a bit but basing a game on who can get the drop quicker\has better ping when they run around that corner for the 100th time isn't fun in the long term IMO, this is where BF3 excels, it offers huge variety in gameplay style.
For CoD they need to go back to basics and get the map and weapon balance right before trying to add more bells and whistles.
I've got BlOps II pre-ordered with Amazon now. Still can't see it dethroning BF3 but can't wait to give it a whirl.
As for where FPS should be going, personally I think BF3 is perfect so long as they keep adding high quality content to it and don't tamper with the balances too much. Get the framework absolutely beautiful first, then concentrate on building upon it. MW3 I feel I got my pants pulled down a bit with, while they upheld their 'Elite subscription' promises, the stuff they added was nowhere near as good as the original content, and did nothing to add to the experience and develop the game, merely piled more of the same on top, nothing much improved, just new places to play.
As I said before, when Armoured Kill came out for BF3 it was like playing a new game with the same premise. Great new maps, new vehicles, which in turn leads to new ways to play and new strategies, ways to kill people, and stuff to explore. That's the big appeal of BF3 for me - there's so many ways you can play; if you want a silly run and gun game you can have one (though I still think COD wins here), if you want to be super stealthy sniper cracking skulls from 1000m+ away and spot for the team you can do that too. There's no right and wrong ways, a sniper can be as useful as having a great heli pilot etc, and if you've got a mix of everything you've got a great team and will get great matches as a result. It's diversity and balance in harmony.
COD lacks that depth, but goes some way to making up for it by being considerably less time eating, you can just pick up and play, and you get that instant satisfaction. A quick fix of FPS if you like.
Unfortunately it's development and evolution just about matches Michael Bay films as a result. They're all the same, albeit with different plots. Yet the newer they are the more frequent the explosions you get - because more explosions and crap falling from the sky left right and centre every few seconds gives the illusion of action, and piling more action on top of action is what you want, probably. Take the same basic formula, double the explosions, make things shake, release it under a new title.
It's a thin veil of wow factor to cover up the lack of real progress. I find that a little frustrating with MW3, yet I can still go back to black ops, enjoy a few hours on it, and finish top of the tables. It's crap looking yet it doesn't get old - sort of like Counter Strike. It was a quick fix, but it was fairly balanced in terms of the whizzbang action stuff and a solid run and gun FPS game.
MW3 was like Transformers. It looked kinda pretty, and there was lots going on, explosions and effects all over the place, but take away the window dressing and it was a bit naff really.
As for where FPS should be going, personally I think BF3 is perfect so long as they keep adding high quality content to it and don't tamper with the balances too much. Get the framework absolutely beautiful first, then concentrate on building upon it. MW3 I feel I got my pants pulled down a bit with, while they upheld their 'Elite subscription' promises, the stuff they added was nowhere near as good as the original content, and did nothing to add to the experience and develop the game, merely piled more of the same on top, nothing much improved, just new places to play.
As I said before, when Armoured Kill came out for BF3 it was like playing a new game with the same premise. Great new maps, new vehicles, which in turn leads to new ways to play and new strategies, ways to kill people, and stuff to explore. That's the big appeal of BF3 for me - there's so many ways you can play; if you want a silly run and gun game you can have one (though I still think COD wins here), if you want to be super stealthy sniper cracking skulls from 1000m+ away and spot for the team you can do that too. There's no right and wrong ways, a sniper can be as useful as having a great heli pilot etc, and if you've got a mix of everything you've got a great team and will get great matches as a result. It's diversity and balance in harmony.
COD lacks that depth, but goes some way to making up for it by being considerably less time eating, you can just pick up and play, and you get that instant satisfaction. A quick fix of FPS if you like.
Unfortunately it's development and evolution just about matches Michael Bay films as a result. They're all the same, albeit with different plots. Yet the newer they are the more frequent the explosions you get - because more explosions and crap falling from the sky left right and centre every few seconds gives the illusion of action, and piling more action on top of action is what you want, probably. Take the same basic formula, double the explosions, make things shake, release it under a new title.
It's a thin veil of wow factor to cover up the lack of real progress. I find that a little frustrating with MW3, yet I can still go back to black ops, enjoy a few hours on it, and finish top of the tables. It's crap looking yet it doesn't get old - sort of like Counter Strike. It was a quick fix, but it was fairly balanced in terms of the whizzbang action stuff and a solid run and gun FPS game.
MW3 was like Transformers. It looked kinda pretty, and there was lots going on, explosions and effects all over the place, but take away the window dressing and it was a bit naff really.
Edited by Stu R on Tuesday 30th October 17:35
Edited by Stu R on Tuesday 30th October 17:36
Season Pass
(Aka pre-paid DLC)
Info: http://www.callofduty.com/blackops2/seasonpass
Basically there will be 4 DLC drops, each RRP £9.99, or you can pre-pay by buying a "season pass" which gets you all for for £34.99. Saves about £5.
I don't like zombies, so if there's going to be a zombies only DLC pack, I'd be better off just getting them one at a time and save money. However if they do something like Elite on MW3 where Elite members got the DLC up to 2 months early, then I'd def sign up.
So, does anyone know if the season pass is just pre-paid DLC at the same time as everyone else gets it, or are there any other upsides to it?
(Aka pre-paid DLC)
Info: http://www.callofduty.com/blackops2/seasonpass
Basically there will be 4 DLC drops, each RRP £9.99, or you can pre-pay by buying a "season pass" which gets you all for for £34.99. Saves about £5.
I don't like zombies, so if there's going to be a zombies only DLC pack, I'd be better off just getting them one at a time and save money. However if they do something like Elite on MW3 where Elite members got the DLC up to 2 months early, then I'd def sign up.
So, does anyone know if the season pass is just pre-paid DLC at the same time as everyone else gets it, or are there any other upsides to it?
mrmr96 said:
Season Pass
(Aka pre-paid DLC)
Info: http://www.callofduty.com/blackops2/seasonpass
Basically there will be 4 DLC drops, each RRP £9.99, or you can pre-pay by buying a "season pass" which gets you all for for £34.99. Saves about £5.
I don't like zombies, so if there's going to be a zombies only DLC pack, I'd be better off just getting them one at a time and save money. However if they do something like Elite on MW3 where Elite members got the DLC up to 2 months early, then I'd def sign up.
So, does anyone know if the season pass is just pre-paid DLC at the same time as everyone else gets it, or are there any other upsides to it?
I think part of the reason they went for the free Elite model was because people didn't like that the maps were released 2 months early. So I doubt very much that they'll be releasing them early for season pass members.(Aka pre-paid DLC)
Info: http://www.callofduty.com/blackops2/seasonpass
Basically there will be 4 DLC drops, each RRP £9.99, or you can pre-pay by buying a "season pass" which gets you all for for £34.99. Saves about £5.
I don't like zombies, so if there's going to be a zombies only DLC pack, I'd be better off just getting them one at a time and save money. However if they do something like Elite on MW3 where Elite members got the DLC up to 2 months early, then I'd def sign up.
So, does anyone know if the season pass is just pre-paid DLC at the same time as everyone else gets it, or are there any other upsides to it?
They need to make COD server based now and not rely on pier to pier hosting.
Not sure if any of you guys suffered from it but i used to be host in over 75% of the games and suffered terrible time delay, it started in MW2, got worse in BLOP's (and id b
h and cry about most games) and MW3 just got traded in after a week due to 'unplayability' + quick scoping fags + lag switchers/cheats. (alot of my online buddies suffered the same issues i had in BLOPS in MW3 and they also traded in - i felt quite smug lol as they used to say i was making it up etc)
The only time itd run smoothly for me was a couple of days after a major update/patch and then itd go tits up again.
Anyway, if they could make BF3 have the same smoothness as COD, then BF3 would be an amazing game. Its a shame they cant combine the two (or just make COD server based with the ability to rent servers ala BF3)
Not sure if any of you guys suffered from it but i used to be host in over 75% of the games and suffered terrible time delay, it started in MW2, got worse in BLOP's (and id b
h and cry about most games) and MW3 just got traded in after a week due to 'unplayability' + quick scoping fags + lag switchers/cheats. (alot of my online buddies suffered the same issues i had in BLOPS in MW3 and they also traded in - i felt quite smug lol as they used to say i was making it up etc)The only time itd run smoothly for me was a couple of days after a major update/patch and then itd go tits up again.
Anyway, if they could make BF3 have the same smoothness as COD, then BF3 would be an amazing game. Its a shame they cant combine the two (or just make COD server based with the ability to rent servers ala BF3)
kingstondc5 said:
They need to make COD server based now and not rely on pier to pier hosting.
Not sure if any of you guys suffered from it but i used to be host in over 75% of the games and suffered terrible time delay, it started in MW2, got worse in BLOP's (and id bh and cry about most games) and MW3 just got traded in after a week due to 'unplayability' + quick scoping fags + lag switchers/cheats. (alot of my online buddies suffered the same issues i had in BLOPS in MW3 and they also traded in - i felt quite smug lol as they used to say i was making it up etc)
The only time itd run smoothly for me was a couple of days after a major update/patch and then itd go tits up again.
Anyway, if they could make BF3 have the same smoothness as COD, then BF3 would be an amazing game. Its a shame they cant combine the two (or just make COD server based with the ability to rent servers ala BF3)
You realise the CoD servers for WaW, Black Ops and MW2 have all gone down because of Sandy? No such worries with peer to peer systems. OK it's not a regular thing, but a pisser all the same.Not sure if any of you guys suffered from it but i used to be host in over 75% of the games and suffered terrible time delay, it started in MW2, got worse in BLOP's (and id b
h and cry about most games) and MW3 just got traded in after a week due to 'unplayability' + quick scoping fags + lag switchers/cheats. (alot of my online buddies suffered the same issues i had in BLOPS in MW3 and they also traded in - i felt quite smug lol as they used to say i was making it up etc)The only time itd run smoothly for me was a couple of days after a major update/patch and then itd go tits up again.
Anyway, if they could make BF3 have the same smoothness as COD, then BF3 would be an amazing game. Its a shame they cant combine the two (or just make COD server based with the ability to rent servers ala BF3)
Steve Evil said:
You realise the CoD servers for WaW, Black Ops and MW2 have all gone down because of Sandy? No such worries with peer to peer systems. OK it's not a regular thing, but a pisser all the same.
Have they moved the old games onto Servers? BLOPS was never server based or if it was, how comes when id quit the game would go down and find a new host?BF3 servers are still running but think there area dependant.
Also, p2p is only great i found if your not the host
kingstondc5 said:
Have they moved the old games onto Servers? BLOPS was never server based or if it was, how comes when id quit the game would go down and find a new host?
BF3 servers are still running but think there area dependant.
Also, p2p is only great i found if your not the host
For certain platforms yes:BF3 servers are still running but think there area dependant.
Also, p2p is only great i found if your not the host
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-31-call-...
kingstondc5 said:
They need to make COD server based now and not rely on pier to pier hosting.
Not sure if any of you guys suffered from it but i used to be host in over 75% of the games and suffered terrible time delay, it started in MW2, got worse in BLOP's (and id bh and cry about most games) and MW3 just got traded in after a week due to 'unplayability' + quick scoping fags + lag switchers/cheats. (alot of my online buddies suffered the same issues i had in BLOPS in MW3 and they also traded in - i felt quite smug lol as they used to say i was making it up etc)
The only time itd run smoothly for me was a couple of days after a major update/patch and then itd go tits up again.
Anyway, if they could make BF3 have the same smoothness as COD, then BF3 would be an amazing game. Its a shame they cant combine the two (or just make COD server based with the ability to rent servers ala BF3)
I think you mean "peer to peer" but I get your point. (Although I do like the idea of a game played over wifi from either end of Brighton beach.)Not sure if any of you guys suffered from it but i used to be host in over 75% of the games and suffered terrible time delay, it started in MW2, got worse in BLOP's (and id b
h and cry about most games) and MW3 just got traded in after a week due to 'unplayability' + quick scoping fags + lag switchers/cheats. (alot of my online buddies suffered the same issues i had in BLOPS in MW3 and they also traded in - i felt quite smug lol as they used to say i was making it up etc)The only time itd run smoothly for me was a couple of days after a major update/patch and then itd go tits up again.
Anyway, if they could make BF3 have the same smoothness as COD, then BF3 would be an amazing game. Its a shame they cant combine the two (or just make COD server based with the ability to rent servers ala BF3)
I generally get on ok with the peer to peer hosting - but only because I pay a lot of money for a low latency connection. However with the advent of lag-(OVER)-compensation this has become more of a disadvantage. Overall I'd say I prefer to have hosted games though. I think Halo 3 used hosts, and worked particularly well. (They had a game mode called "SWAT" which used Assault Rifle type guns, called Battle Rifles in that game though, where it was one shot kills if it's a headshot. You needed to have a properly hosted game for that to be remotely fair. And given that the time to kill someone in CoD is so low, then having a properly hosted game will be the best answer for smooth and consistent play.)
However, one change that I'd like to make in preference would be to the rank matching, of which there's none in previous CoDs - you're just in a random lobby and I think it would be better if people were matched with players of similar skill, again like Halo 3. I think this addressed to an extent in BO2, as there is a ranking mode I believe.
The other thing I'd like to see would be the "party up" option, similar to Halo 3. This means that if you've played well with the "randoms" in your team then you just hit a button in the post game lobby and it will automatically party up those who opt in. It was a good way to get a little team going - even if only for a couple of hours. To do this in CoD you have to back out, then one leader has to invite the others. Much less streamlined and doesn't happen as much IME.
Steve Evil said:
kingstondc5 said:
Have they moved the old games onto Servers? BLOPS was never server based or if it was, how comes when id quit the game would go down and find a new host?
BF3 servers are still running but think there area dependant.
Also, p2p is only great i found if your not the host
For certain platforms yes:BF3 servers are still running but think there area dependant.
Also, p2p is only great i found if your not the host
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-31-call-...
Guitar Hero (all titles and platforms)
Call of Duty: World at War (all platforms)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3)
Call of Duty: Black Ops (PS3, PC, Wii)"
So basically none of the XBOX360 CoD games, except WaW which no one plays anymore.
mrmr96 said:
"According to One of Swords, some data centers are currently without power which may affect online services for the following games:
Guitar Hero (all titles and platforms)
Call of Duty: World at War (all platforms)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3)
Call of Duty: Black Ops (PS3, PC, Wii)"
So basically none of the XBOX360 CoD games, except WaW which no one plays anymore.
No, but the XBox ones are all Peer to Peer, which was the point I was trying to make.Guitar Hero (all titles and platforms)
Call of Duty: World at War (all platforms)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3)
Call of Duty: Black Ops (PS3, PC, Wii)"
So basically none of the XBOX360 CoD games, except WaW which no one plays anymore.
Steve Evil said:
mrmr96 said:
"According to One of Swords, some data centers are currently without power which may affect online services for the following games:
Guitar Hero (all titles and platforms)
Call of Duty: World at War (all platforms)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3)
Call of Duty: Black Ops (PS3, PC, Wii)"
So basically none of the XBOX360 CoD games, except WaW which no one plays anymore.
No, but the XBox ones are all Peer to Peer, which was the point I was trying to make.Guitar Hero (all titles and platforms)
Call of Duty: World at War (all platforms)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (PS3)
Call of Duty: Black Ops (PS3, PC, Wii)"
So basically none of the XBOX360 CoD games, except WaW which no one plays anymore.
I still think server based is better 99.99% of the time though.
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff