LBPCentral Archive

Home

General Stuff

General Gaming

Black Ops 2

Archive: 65 posts

Yep. Treyarch has announced not only another COD game, but a sequel to the terrible Black Ops.

But for all you COD lovers (I am one, but I only like MW2), I have made a thread for your enjoyment.

Call Of Duty: Black Ops 2 is announced. Activision says that it will be released on 2 November 2012 and it instantly gets 50 million pre-orders. Activision hires out the entire Burj Khalifa for its launch event and flies the The Queen Of England out to Dubai to present MBEs to every one of its attendees. Copies of COD: Black Ops 2 are sent to a select few publications.

Some videos on the leaked features:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xjUVWR6AWQ&list=UUYVinkwSX7szARULgYpvhLw&index=5&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKEoV54TffI&list=UUYVinkwSX7szARULgYpvhLw&index=13&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbEiMwyrs6M&list=UUYVinkwSX7szARULgYpvhLw&index=12&feature=plcp

Oh Treyarch.....

2012-04-13 16:42:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

Can we assume the next one'll just be called "Call Of Duty: Oh screw it you know we're money grabbers now, just hand over ?40 and no-one gets hurt"?

2012-04-13 17:14:00

Author:
kirbyman62

Posts: 1893

People complain it's like the last game.
Developers say they tweaked and fixed a few broken things from the last game.
Everyone wants it now.

...

They're fun games, but not for me...not anymore...

2012-04-13 21:19:00

Author:
warlord_evil

Posts: 4193

People complain it's like the last game.
Developers tweak and fix a few broken things from the last game.
Everyone wants it now.

...

They're fun games, but not for me...not anymore...

Agreed. And now their is some noob-friendly kill streak which makes them see through anything.

WE'RE NOT SAFE ANYMORE

2012-04-13 21:21:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

People complain it's like the last game.
Developers say they tweaked and fixed a few broken things from the last game.
Everyone wants it now.

...

They're fun games, but not for me...not anymore...

You forgot:

4. Developer lied and actually broke the game more.

2012-04-14 01:08:00

Author:
Speedynutty68

Posts: 1614

BO2 will be just as bad as BO1...

2012-04-14 01:14:00

Author:
zzmorg82

Posts: 948

Leaked cover art and official title:
http://chzvideogames.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/video-game-memes-cant-wait-for-the-sequel1.jpg
(yeah I do realize that 3arc is doing it)

2012-04-14 02:24:00

Author:
gdn001

Posts: 5891

Leaked cover art and official title:
http://chzvideogames.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/video-game-memes-cant-wait-for-the-sequel1.jpg
(yeah I do realize that 3arc is doing it)

Nope. Down, deep in the archive of treyarch... they have a future teller thing. He has already predicted a WW4 and 5, so Treyarch is pretty much set for 2 years

2012-04-14 02:50:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

Nope. Down, deep in the archive of treyarch... they have a future teller thing. He has already predicted a WW4 and 5, so Treyarch is pretty much set for 2 years

Doesn't matter had cover art

2012-04-14 03:12:00

Author:
gdn001

Posts: 5891

I have no comment. Seriously. Someone treat this like those ET games because right about now, we all know how bad its gonna be. I will literally camp out at my nearest gamestop and slap the next stupid 9 year old kid who reaches for this waste of money. Seriously, some people need to get some taste.

/rant

2012-04-14 05:08:00

Author:
grayspence

Posts: 1990

This is depressing. Treyarch was the only reason left to even consider playing a CoD title. They were a bro-developer since WaW (well at least community wise; Pro Skater 2 and Spider-Man 2 were some of their greatest games). They actually listened to what everybody said and tried their best to improve the game while meeting the players' demands (more Zombies being a usual complaint). I know BO was slowly turning them into Infinity Ward, but I still can't believe this. What a terrible way to go, Treyarch.

2012-04-14 05:18:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

We all know how this goes.

CoD sucks.
Buy this years version.
CoD still sucks.

Why pretend this year will be any different.

2012-04-14 09:12:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot

Posts: 6728

We all know how this goes.

CoD sucks.
Buy this years version.
CoD still sucks.

Why pretend this year will be any different.

Ah, but we don't pretend. We know it sucks, and we're secretly glad it does. CoD may be the cancer of video games, but they're a necessity for the gaming community. Without them, how else are we going to keep out 15 year olds and a-holes from our games?

We might envy its popularity, but in the end we benefit from it.

2012-04-14 09:32:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

Another Black Ops? Oh, gosh. Now all the fanboys from my class (AKA every one) will get it. And will shout at me for not doing that. Who is the strange one here: the one that buys the same game every year or the one who doesn't like shooters (well, most of them. I like Killzone. No idea why)?

2012-04-14 15:51:00

Author:
Patofan

Posts: 1185

Treyarch were **** the moment the Kar98k wasn't a 1shot kill in WaW.

TREYARCH, Y U NO COD2

2012-04-14 21:10:00

Author:
Unknown User

It's just a vicious circle. COD was once great, and became popular because of that. It sells like hell because it's popular and it's popular because it sells like hell. Its (lack of) quality is not even relevant anymore. It's the franchise millions of kids play because they don't know any better. It's the franchise every reviewing site and magazine overrates because they don't want to lose the huge amount of money they get for advertising it.

Fortunately more and more people are becoming aware of this BS Activision pulls off each year.

2012-04-14 22:09:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

Fortunately more and more people are becoming aware of this BS Activision pulls off each year.

Yet the sales go up each year. So that's not true.

2012-04-14 22:26:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino

Posts: 5250

treyarch were **** the moment the kar98k wasn't a 1shot kill in waw.

Treyarch, y u no cod2

the kar98k was a one-shot deal! Stupid babbys complained it was op and juggernaut and second chance noobies killed any hope of a one-shot rifle!

Lrn2 cod:waw

2012-04-15 01:10:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

Yet the sales go up each year. So that's not true.

And yet nowadays there isn't a thread about COD that isn't full of complaints. Maybe sales are going up, but people are definitely developing more critical thinking about this franchise. Maybe they complain about COD but end up buying anyway, which is stupid, but it's a start.

2012-04-15 07:23:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

And yet nowadays there isn't a thread about COD that isn't full of complaints. Maybe sales are going up, but people are definitely developing more critical thinking about this franchise. Maybe they complain about COD but end up buying anyway, which is stupid, but it's a start.

People complain because they are sheep. I guarantee a large percent of the people that complain have no idea why they're complaining, they just do it because it's the new "fad".

2012-04-15 07:30:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino

Posts: 5250

People complain because they are sheep. I guarantee a large percent of the people that complain have no idea why they're complaining, they just do it because it's the new "fad".

Much like how a lot of people who never even touched a BF title suddenly came out and said CoD sucks, then claimed that BF3 was the greatest thing ever invented.

2012-04-15 19:01:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

Much like how a lot of people who never even touched a BF title suddenly came out and said CoD sucks, then claimed that BF3 was the greatest thing ever invented.

Except BC2 was better. And so was BF2.

2012-04-15 20:07:00

Author:
Unknown User

Except BC2 was better. And so was BF2.

How did we get from Black Ops 2 to Battlefield 3?

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b165/xsaydex/jackie-chan.jpg

2012-04-15 22:48:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

How did we get from Black Ops 2 to Battlefield 3?

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b165/xsaydex/jackie-chan.jpg
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18652711.jpg

2012-04-15 23:25:00

Author:
gdn001

Posts: 5891

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18652711.jpg

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/8051/360screenshootnoscope.png

2012-04-16 01:09:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

I really enjoyed Black Ops but didn't play it much after unlocking pretty much everything. I actually enjoy grinding in the Modern Warfare games, because it always gives me something to play for. CoD Points just removes the reason behind trying to unlock something.

2012-04-16 01:42:00

Author:
Night Angel

Posts: 1214

People complain because they are sheep. I guarantee a large percent of the people that complain have no idea why they're complaining, they just do it because it's the new "fad".

Well, the people who complain aren't less sheepish than the people who buy it every single year. Criticising COD isn't just a "fad", because there's a reason to do it.

2012-04-16 15:24:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

Well, the people who complain aren't less sheepish than the people who buy it every single year. Criticising COD isn't just a "fad", because there's a reason to do it.

See:

Much like how a lot of people who never even touched a BF title suddenly came out and said CoD sucks, then claimed that BF3 was the greatest thing ever invented.

Except BC2 was better. And so was BF2.

Both 'fads' are just as bad as they are good. People either complain it's lousy to look good or because they honestly believe it's bad. CoD vets will agree that even though MW2 was a train wreck, yet it was still oddly addicting and fun to play. Don't try to justify one side over the other.

2012-04-16 18:07:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

See:

Both 'fads' are just as bad as they are good. People either complain it's lousy to look good or because they honestly believe it's bad. CoD vets will agree that even though MW2 was a train wreck, yet it was still oddly addicting and fun to play. Don't try to justify one side over the other.

Well, I can't say those 4 hours of single-player campaign weren't at loeast entertaining. And getting killed in multiplayer over and over and over by a guy who's rubbed himself into the invulnerable protection of a rock's insides was also very fun!

Edit: Actually, it seems Black Ops sold better than MW3 (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-16-call-of-duty-sales-slow-modern-warfare-3s-tally-dips-below-black-ops). Maybe people are getting wiser after all

2012-04-16 18:15:00

Author:
SnipySev

Posts: 2452

Oh gosh! Another bad BO? (Get it? bad BO) I sold Black ops Right before the second map pack came out.

2012-04-17 02:47:00

Author:
TheMonkeyBlade

Posts: 687

I guess most of you have already seen the trailer, but I'm still going to paste it here so everyone can see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x3tedlWs1XY

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2iitz6d.jpg

What to say? Well, at least they went for something completely different than the previous Call of Dutys...

http://preview.images.memegenerator.net/Instance/Preview?imageID=627067&generatorTypeID=&panels=&text0=&text1=ZOMBIES&text2=&text3=

2012-05-06 13:48:00

Author:
gdn001

Posts: 5891

Sorry I havent updated the front page. Not sure if it is even worth updating, that game was so freaking weird.....

But we all know that the akimbo lazer pistols will be overpowered :kz:

2012-05-06 14:22:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

Some little kid: "OMG COD is in the future now! It's gonna revolutionise the entire series!"
Me: *really hard punch in tha face* "NO

!"

But seriously this will be identical to the last four games :tophat:

2012-05-06 14:38:00

Author:
PGdafrog

Posts: 277

I don't know why so many people hate on Call of Duty, you guys are seriously all sheep. You just hate on the game because everyone else hates it. People on the internet need to make up their mind. When the game is the same as every other game people scream "innovate". But when they try to change the game as much as they can without ruining what Call of Duty is known for, everyone screams "this isn't Call of Duty anymore."

The game is entirely different from what we have seen before, in fact I haven't been this excited for a Call of Duty game since MW2. Treyarch is no longer confined to world history when they create their game, they can do what they want, when they want, how they want. The game has branching paths that will effect the story line and the end game. How does that not show you that they are trying to make their game better?

And I'm not the only one, Black Ops 2 has ALREADY broken pre-order records from all previous Call of Duty games.

We'll just have to wait and see I guess but I seriously don't see why everyone hates on the series so much.

2012-05-06 18:40:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino

Posts: 5250

2012-05-06 19:23:00

Author:
Speedynutty68

Posts: 1614

I find the Call of Duty campaigns to be fairly epic, but the multiplayer exceptionally terrible. I have a massive preference for objective based play over killing, hence I dislike CoD's MP. There is essentially no complex thinking involved.

The game is very fun for people that just want a game they can jump into though. It's just not my cup of tea.

Will I buy this? Probably not, given my dislike for BO (didn't even bother with MW3).

2012-05-06 20:05:00

Author:
SSTAGG1

Posts: 1136

? this isn't really the most innovative look at the future is it?
Those helicopter things are lifted outta avatar with an extra set of propellers added in to cover the blatancy of the rip off. I believe I've seen those walk-a-dee things too somewhere. scince the vehicles won't be in the multiplayer where everyone else will be whats the point of them even exsisting? I saw a gameplay demo of a scrapped COD game recently, which had in it so much more inovation then any actually released COD games it was actually funny to see. (it wasn't brilliantly orriginal, but it did show off how the series could quite easily change the formula whilst keeping the core gameplay similar)
@whalio: look to the transition from warhawk to starhawk to see how sequels and gameplay can change whilst still keeping what the fans love in tact. its sad to see such lazy people as those who create these games get so much cash for so little work when developers doing really unique things and/or changing the gameplay of their series to make it truely unique get so little in terms of sales.

2012-05-06 20:31:00

Author:
Smudge228

Posts: 533

@whalio: look to the transition from warhawk to starhawk to see how sequels and gameplay can change whilst still keeping what the fans love in tact.

And you know this how? Has Starhawk even been released yet?

...when developers doing really unique things and/or changing the gameplay of their series to make it truely unique get so little in terms of sales.

So why would developers do it? You may live in this fairy tale world that believes that developers of a game are not in it for the money but are in fact in it to make their customers happy and giddy inside, but that's incorrect.

All they're in it for is the money. And if what you say is true, why spend money and time, innovating and changing the gameplay of their series when they'll probably lose more money in sales? It's because people don't like it when a game changes.

So, basically, they have finally listened to all the people complaining with valid reasons and are going to try to fix it? I can garantee that they will fix one thing, and completely skrew up something else. It's kinda their specialty.

And other companies don't do the exact same thing you just said? All companies fix something, and screw up something else, they're called bugs.

What they screw up is entirely your opinion. They have never screwed up the game to the point that it was unplayable (at least for me).

When a game is as big as Call of Duty, there will always be people that complain that something is wrong with their game. That's not their problem.

You can say what you want about the series but I've always seen Call of Duty improve throughout the years. People complained about perks in the game, those said perks were removed, people complained about certain weapons/attachments, they were fixed.

Call of Duty Elite was a huge step for Activision and they really didn't need to do it, but they are trying to innovate their game. Of course you can't expect every single person to be happy especially when it comes to Call of Duty with its millions of players. Which is why you see so many people constantly complaining.

I don't see any of you asking DICE to innovate Battlefield, and if you seriously think Battlefield 3 was a huge step in terms of innovation compared to Battlefield 2 or BC2, open your eyes. Graphic overhauls are not innovating moves.

2012-05-06 20:39:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino

Posts: 5250

Those helicopter things are lifted outta avatar with an extra set of propellers added in to cover the blatancy of the rip off.

If you're refering to the things that are like this http://www.aliexpress.com/product-fm/398911357-Spot-Parrot-AR-Drone-IPhone-IPad-Touch-remote-control-four-rotor-aircraft-helicopterFree-Shipping-gan-10024-wholesalers.html but with guns that would be ripping off technology that exists.

2012-05-06 20:46:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot

Posts: 6728

And you know this how? Has Starhawk even been released yet?

Did you not see the public beta on the ps store for like 2-4 weeks? Usually a good indicator (but obviously your right in the respect that none of that is confirmed content).

Anyway, gameplay wise this will bring nothing new... not sure why people expect it at this point. Theme wise, may be quite interesting... enough to warrent a purchase? probably not. Also... since zombies seems to always be the most popular mode, does anyone else wonder why they havn't made a pure zombie game yet?

2012-05-06 20:55:00

Author:
ForgottenEnigma

Posts: 1414

Did you not see the public beta on the ps store for like 2-4 weeks? Usually a good indicator.

What about it though? Were there more people on the beta than all the people that played Warhawk?

Also for future reference;

<--Doesn't own a PS3. So I did not see this public beta.

Also:

-The game's story will jump between two timelines, with the primary one set in 2025. "Most" of the game will be set in 2025.
-It is a direct sequel to Black Ops.
-We will find out definitively what happened at the end of Black Ops—presumably, Mason didn't actually kill JFK, given that he's out in the field in Black Ops II. But who knows?
-The second timeline will be set in the late 80's near the end of the Cold War.
-The story will be narrated by Black Ops character Frank Woods, now an old man. Apparently he didn't die at the end of Black Ops after all.
-In the 80's timeline, players will take on the role of Black Ops protagonist Alex Mason.
-In 2025, players will take on the role of David Mason, who is the son of Alex Mason. The father/son relationship will play a part in the story. Hello daddening of video games!
-In the game's fiction, there is a second Cold War happening between China and the US due to the scarcity of Rare Earth Elements used to make tech devices and military weapons.
-The story is based on a real-world possibility, as China (according to the folks at Treyarch) currently controls 95% of the rare earth elements in the world. Topical!
-Many of the real-world hooks are inspired by P.W. Singer's Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century.
-A good deal of the 1980's action will take place during proxy wars in Central America. Tropical!
-Game Director Dave Anthony hinted that we may find out more about "imaginary" Viktor Reznov. "He was essentially a figment of the player's imagination," Anthony said.
"Or was he?" Studio Director Mark Lamia chimed in, playfully. "Will we find out more about that?" asked Anthony with a smirk.
-David Mason (the son)'s callsign is "Section." Which is kind of a cool callsign.
-The villain will be a man named Raul Menendez, who in 2025 is pitting the Chinese and US governments against each other by hacking into their drones and other robotic weapons.
-The 1980's missions will chronicle what started Menendez on setting his current-day plans in motion.
-The story is was written from the ground up by Dark Knight and Batman Begins co-writer David Goyer. Goyer joined the first Black Ops part of the way through. He wanted to "create a memorable villain" with Menendez.
-Menendez has hacked into the US's unmanned drones and unleashed an attack on Los Angeles. In the mission we saw, a fleet of drones were destroying buildings in downtown LA.
-There will be at least one female soldier in the game, a pilot named Anderson. She laid quite a bit of waste during the entire LA mission.
-The president in 2025 is also a woman, and appeared in the LA mission.
-David Mason's sidekick is a soldier named Nelson who appears to be played by Michael Rooker of Mallrats and The Walking Dead fame.
-The game will be using full-body performance capture to place its actors in the game; the tech demo I saw demonstrated both male and female actors captured with the sort of clarity we've come to expect from games using full-performance capture. James Burns will be reprising his role as Frank Woods, of course.
-From what I saw in several demo sections set in a burning, futuristic LA, drones are controllable in combat and will play a large part in the game. Players have a drone-controller on their wrist in the game, and can use it to assign targets and waypoints.
-There will be horses, and horseback-riding, during at least one sequence in the 1980's. They even went so far as to bring a horse into the motion capture studio.
-At one point in the demo, the player jumped into a futuristic anti-aircraft gun and shot down enemy drones.
-Vehicle segments will be back, including one piloting a futuristic VTOL airship. Part of the VTOL mission was mostly on-rails, but the second part involved free-flying and dogfighting with drones.
-The Black Ops II story will be branching—it will feature choices and variable outcomes. Wait, what? Yep.
-At one point, players had an option to either grab a sniper rifle and cover their squad, or rappel down to join up with them. Presumably that choice leads to a slightly different gameplay experience—this looks like one of the smaller of the choices offered in the game.
-A large part of the branching will be due to Strike Force, which is a brand-new game mode featuring tactical, open-ended gameplay in sandbox-style levels.
-Strike Force missions will be woven into the core single-player campaign, and will present themselves as various black ops missions available around the globe.
-Players won't be able to play all of the strike force missions in a single playthrough.
-Strike Force is currently only included in the campaign and isn't a separate mode. It won't allow for multiplayer but, at some point down the road, could be fleshed out. "Things like Zombies originally started as unlocks," said an Activision representative after we followed up to make sure. "We're not taking the option off the table."
-Depending on the outcome of a given strike force mission, the story will change. "You're going to choose a mission," said Lamia, "and that's a branch for the story. Say there's three missions out there—you're not going to go back and play all of them; the story goes on. If you die on a strike force mission, you die in the story."
-Going on that, it would seem that the playable characters don't feature in the Strike Force missions.
-Strike Force allows players to control squads of troops, giving follow/hold commands with the shoulder buttons.
-Strike Force also allows a zoomed-out command view via an unmanned aerial drone that lets you to set waypoints for your units to achieve shifting goals.
-Strike Force will allow you to control (at the very least) armed aerial drones, armed land-drones, and unarmed aerial drones in addition to being able to hop to the viewpoint of any of the soldiers in your squad.
-The strike force missions will unfold organically but will be written into the story—in that way, they'll function somewhat like a single-player version of the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3.
-I think I heard Kiefer Sutherland voicing one of the squad members in Strike Force, but I'm not sure. Consider this a Kiefer! Rumor!
-Multiplayer director David Vonderhaar relayed that the new approach they are taking is "One size does not fit all." That means, he said, that there is no one way to play a Call of Duty game. So, they're pulling back features like create-a-class, killstreaks, and other features and reexamining them, challenging their assumptions of "what cows are sacred."
-Multiplayer will take place entirely in the year 2025—there will be no multiplayer missions set in the 80's.
-They are taking the E-sports community very seriously. In part, that means that they're focusing on making the game more fun to watch as a spectator. Hopefully that means super cute, colorful uniforms!
-Online Director Dan Bunting took us through a tech demo of the upgraded graphics; while lighting upgrades and tech aren't usually the most interesting topics, what they were showing looked great. -As they put it, they are aiming for "PC quality graphics running at 60 FPS on a console." The illusion was quite convincing.
-We saw two unpopulated multiplayer maps: The first map we saw was a naturalistic map located in a village in Yemen.
-The second map was called "Aftermath" and was set in a ruined downtown LA, presumably after the drone-attack that we saw in the demo.
-Zombies will definitely be back in Black Ops II, and will feature all new modes that are more fleshed-out than ever.
-"There will be more zombies and more modes; just more."
-The zombies are "In the multiplayer engine." "If you think about all of the things we can do with our multiplayer engine," Lamia said, "You can start to think about how we might be looking at this." Okay then!
-Zombies are the only confirmed co-op aspect of Black Ops II. The campaign and strike-force modes do not appear to feature co-op.

Source:http://kotaku.com/5906808/48-things-that-you-should-know-about-call-of-duty-black-ops-ii

And this...

http://kotaku.com/5906851/black-ops-iis-strike-force-mode-adds-a-branching-narrative-with-a-tactical-twist

2012-05-06 20:57:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino

Posts: 5250

What about it though? Were there more people on the beta than all the people that played Warhawk?

Also for future reference;

<--Doesn't own a PS3. So I did not see this public beta.

Also:

-The game's story will jump between two timelines, with the primary one set in 2025. "Most" of the game will be set in 2025.
-It is a direct sequel to Black Ops.
-We will find out definitively what happened at the end of Black Ops?presumably, Mason didn't actually kill JFK, given that he's out in the field in Black Ops II. But who knows?
-The second timeline will be set in the late 80's near the end of the Cold War.
-The story will be narrated by Black Ops character Frank Woods, now an old man. Apparently he didn't die at the end of Black Ops after all.
-In the 80's timeline, players will take on the role of Black Ops protagonist Alex Mason.
-In 2025, players will take on the role of David Mason, who is the son of Alex Mason. The father/son relationship will play a part in the story. Hello daddening of video games!
-In the game's fiction, there is a second Cold War happening between China and the US due to the scarcity of Rare Earth Elements used to make tech devices and military weapons.
-The story is based on a real-world possibility, as China (according to the folks at Treyarch) currently controls 95% of the rare earth elements in the world. Topical!
-Many of the real-world hooks are inspired by P.W. Singer's Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century.
-A good deal of the 1980's action will take place during proxy wars in Central America. Tropical!
-Game Director Dave Anthony hinted that we may find out more about "imaginary" Viktor Reznov. "He was essentially a figment of the player's imagination," Anthony said.
"Or was he?" Studio Director Mark Lamia chimed in, playfully. "Will we find out more about that?" asked Anthony with a smirk.
-David Mason (the son)'s callsign is "Section." Which is kind of a cool callsign.
-The villain will be a man named Raul Menendez, who in 2025 is pitting the Chinese and US governments against each other by hacking into their drones and other robotic weapons.
-The 1980's missions will chronicle what started Menendez on setting his current-day plans in motion.
-The story is was written from the ground up by Dark Knight and Batman Begins co-writer David Goyer. Goyer joined the first Black Ops part of the way through. He wanted to "create a memorable villain" with Menendez.
-Menendez has hacked into the US's unmanned drones and unleashed an attack on Los Angeles. In the mission we saw, a fleet of drones were destroying buildings in downtown LA.
-There will be at least one female soldier in the game, a pilot named Anderson. She laid quite a bit of waste during the entire LA mission.
-The president in 2025 is also a woman, and appeared in the LA mission.
-David Mason's sidekick is a soldier named Nelson who appears to be played by Michael Rooker of Mallrats and The Walking Dead fame.
-The game will be using full-body performance capture to place its actors in the game; the tech demo I saw demonstrated both male and female actors captured with the sort of clarity we've come to expect from games using full-performance capture. James Burns will be reprising his role as Frank Woods, of course.
-From what I saw in several demo sections set in a burning, futuristic LA, drones are controllable in combat and will play a large part in the game. Players have a drone-controller on their wrist in the game, and can use it to assign targets and waypoints.
-There will be horses, and horseback-riding, during at least one sequence in the 1980's. They even went so far as to bring a horse into the motion capture studio.
-At one point in the demo, the player jumped into a futuristic anti-aircraft gun and shot down enemy drones.
-Vehicle segments will be back, including one piloting a futuristic VTOL airship. Part of the VTOL mission was mostly on-rails, but the second part involved free-flying and dogfighting with drones.
-The Black Ops II story will be branching?it will feature choices and variable outcomes. Wait, what? Yep.
-At one point, players had an option to either grab a sniper rifle and cover their squad, or rappel down to join up with them. Presumably that choice leads to a slightly different gameplay experience?this looks like one of the smaller of the choices offered in the game.
-A large part of the branching will be due to Strike Force, which is a brand-new game mode featuring tactical, open-ended gameplay in sandbox-style levels.
-Strike Force missions will be woven into the core single-player campaign, and will present themselves as various black ops missions available around the globe.
-Players won't be able to play all of the strike force missions in a single playthrough.
-Strike Force is currently only included in the campaign and isn't a separate mode. It won't allow for multiplayer but, at some point down the road, could be fleshed out. "Things like Zombies originally started as unlocks," said an Activision representative after we followed up to make sure. "We're not taking the option off the table."
-Depending on the outcome of a given strike force mission, the story will change. "You're going to choose a mission," said Lamia, "and that's a branch for the story. Say there's three missions out there?you're not going to go back and play all of them; the story goes on. If you die on a strike force mission, you die in the story."
-Going on that, it would seem that the playable characters don't feature in the Strike Force missions.
-Strike Force allows players to control squads of troops, giving follow/hold commands with the shoulder buttons.
-Strike Force also allows a zoomed-out command view via an unmanned aerial drone that lets you to set waypoints for your units to achieve shifting goals.
-Strike Force will allow you to control (at the very least) armed aerial drones, armed land-drones, and unarmed aerial drones in addition to being able to hop to the viewpoint of any of the soldiers in your squad.
-The strike force missions will unfold organically but will be written into the story?in that way, they'll function somewhat like a single-player version of the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3.
-I think I heard Kiefer Sutherland voicing one of the squad members in Strike Force, but I'm not sure. Consider this a Kiefer! Rumor!
-Multiplayer director David Vonderhaar relayed that the new approach they are taking is "One size does not fit all." That means, he said, that there is no one way to play a Call of Duty game. So, they're pulling back features like create-a-class, killstreaks, and other features and reexamining them, challenging their assumptions of "what cows are sacred."
-Multiplayer will take place entirely in the year 2025?there will be no multiplayer missions set in the 80's.
-They are taking the E-sports community very seriously. In part, that means that they're focusing on making the game more fun to watch as a spectator. Hopefully that means super cute, colorful uniforms!
-Online Director Dan Bunting took us through a tech demo of the upgraded graphics; while lighting upgrades and tech aren't usually the most interesting topics, what they were showing looked great. -As they put it, they are aiming for "PC quality graphics running at 60 FPS on a console." The illusion was quite convincing.
-We saw two unpopulated multiplayer maps: The first map we saw was a naturalistic map located in a village in Yemen.
-The second map was called "Aftermath" and was set in a ruined downtown LA, presumably after the drone-attack that we saw in the demo.
-Zombies will definitely be back in Black Ops II, and will feature all new modes that are more fleshed-out than ever.
-"There will be more zombies and more modes; just more."
-The zombies are "In the multiplayer engine." "If you think about all of the things we can do with our multiplayer engine," Lamia said, "You can start to think about how we might be looking at this." Okay then!
-Zombies are the only confirmed co-op aspect of Black Ops II. The campaign and strike-force modes do not appear to feature co-op.

Source:http://kotaku.com/5906808/48-things-that-you-should-know-about-call-of-duty-black-ops-ii

And this...

http://kotaku.com/5906851/black-ops-iis-strike-force-mode-adds-a-branching-narrative-with-a-tactical-twist

Wut. Did not just understand a word of that.

But thanks fo the info!

The only COD Game I really LOVED was MW2. And I was addicted.

2012-05-06 23:59:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

What they screw up is entirely your opinion. They have never screwed up the game to the point that it was unplayable (at least for me).

http://writingfrommyheart.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/challenge-accepted.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5DvGLBJny0

2012-05-07 05:20:00

Author:
Speedynutty68

Posts: 1614

http://writingfrommyheart.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/challenge-accepted.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5DvGLBJny0

I think you should look up the definition of "unplayable".

Game was perfectly playable, just annoying.

2012-05-07 07:39:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino

Posts: 5250

@my earlier post
Not only had the starhawk public BETA been up for around a month, but I was also lucky enough to get access to the private one. many people already have the game and have posted story mode walkthroughs as well.
The COD franchise doesn't innovate or change, it just changes its maps slightly, alters its weapons a bit and then re-releases it. its still for the most part the exact same thing as it was back when the first one released, only now with no more possible american wars to force people into they've been forced to take it to the future. If they released a COD medieval warfare I might've been more interested but as it is, this game is just not worth the cash.

2012-05-07 10:13:00

Author:
Smudge228

Posts: 533

Can I ask a question, who actually plays COD for their single player campaigns? They're short and boring (in my opinion).

2012-05-07 13:29:00

Author:
PGdafrog

Posts: 277

Can I ask a question, who actually plays COD for their single player campaigns? They're short and boring (in my opinion).

I never play them. Whenever I try them, Some random guy with a mustache comes out of a window and kills me. (ON MW2)

2012-05-07 14:34:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

I never play them. Whenever I try them, Some random guy with a mustache comes out of a window and kills me. (ON MW2)
Dafuq.

So I am the only one that plays the campaign first?

2012-05-07 23:24:00

Author:
gdn001

Posts: 5891

http://preview.images.memegenerator.net/Instance/Preview?imageID=627067&generatorTypeID=&panels=&text0=&text1=ZOMBIES&text2=&text3=

Doesn't let me see the image. The link does hint it's about zombies though, so I'm fairly curious about what it is.

'Why do you guys hate my game so much' rant.

For me, it has to do with how they've ruined the online experience, the developers' work ethic, and the stories (yes, the campaigns people apparently don't care about).

Call of Duty 2 was fun during its prime because of the amount of skill and quick reactions you needed to win. I honestly cannot understand how people can enjoy being handed to them such an over powered weapon, a glitch or two, and tons of killstreaks to rape their opponents and feel good about it. I get what Activision and its developers are doing: they want to make the game easy so people can get an easy kill and feel as though they're the most godliest player ever. While this sounds nice and all, I still enjoy having to 'work' for my kills/rank. Getting a kill by being faster and more accurate than your opponent who has the same class and no perks like you do is a way better feeling of both accomplishment and dominance than being given a Predator Missile and getting an almost guaranteed kill.

The developers are also a problem I have with the CoD games. Inifinity Ward was innovative. They came up with perks, good maps, and a kick-*** story for campaign mode that was really enjoyable. They were really cool with the community at first, but then they started using their Modern Warfare fame to make easy money. The end result of their new style of making games was Modern Warfare 2, and man was a train wreck. I'm not gonna lie, it was fun to play online, but then they stopped caring about fixing bugs and instead release DLC after DLC, and then they began working on MW3, leaving all of the fans to drown in the s---pool that has now become of the MW2 online experience. I barely mustered up the interest to buy Black Ops because Treyarch were really good at listening to their community; they patched frequently, and they made Zombies a very addictive game. But then they too began using their new fame as a cash cow. They stopped fixing bugs as frequently, they began releasing half-assed Zombie maps, and they're making a sequel to an already finished story. I still have some faith in Treyarch in keeping their bro status with the community, but right now it looks like they've just stopped caring about the community altogether.

Finally, I hate what they've done with the stories. CoD4 had an amazing story that was very good in CoD standards. The game ended with Captain Price dying, and I wished they just left it at that. But they didn't. They somehow thought by reviving him that everything would be better. Instead, they made the story as confusing and stupid as Star Wars and Metal Gear Solid combined. They added the airport scene to cause contrevorsy rather than to add to the story, and MW3 was a very bad copy-and-paste game with no real contributition to the overall plot other than 'I killed the bad guy... I am a hero.' ~ Captain Price Black Ops 2 looks like it is decending down the same path, and I really REALLY hate how they ended the Zombie series in the first game (for those of you who don't know, the heoric team somehow managed to blow up the whole entire Earth; I'm not kidding). The ending was nothing but a load of BS and a big middle finger to everybody who paid for the maps, so I'm just amazed at how they can keep ruining the Zombie storyline and not give a ****.

That, Whale, is why I stopped liking Call of Duty. If you can remember, I posted in CoD threads and enjoyed them, but after seeing how both Treyarch and Infinity Ward turned out to be, I will never appreciate any of their games so long as they remain to produce games in their current manner. As for everybody else, I;m guessing that half of the fanbase feels the same way as I do, and the other half are a bunch of kids who want to be with the in crowd.

1) So why would developers do it? You may live in this fairy tale world that believes that developers of a game are not in it for the money but are in fact in it to make their customers happy and giddy inside, but that's incorrect.

All they're in it for is the money. And if what you say is true, why spend money and time, innovating and changing the gameplay of their series when they'll probably lose more money in sales? It's because people don't like it when a game changes.

2) You can say what you want about the series but I've always seen Call of Duty improve throughout the years. People complained about perks in the game, those said perks were removed, people complained about certain weapons/attachments, they were fixed.

3) Call of Duty Elite was a huge step for Activision and they really didn't need to do it, but they are trying to innovate their game. Of course you can't expect every single person to be happy especially when it comes to Call of Duty with its millions of players. Which is why you see so many people constantly complaining.

4) I don't see any of you asking DICE to innovate Battlefield, and if you seriously think Battlefield 3 was a huge step in terms of innovation compared to Battlefield 2 or BC2, open your eyes. Graphic overhauls are not innovating moves.

1) Obviously. Companies are always in it for the money, but since we're the customers we have a right to criticize a game to Hell and back, so your little "But you're wrong to hate them" speech is just as bad as our "but you're wrong to like them" rants. People want to pay for a game they're familiar with, but sometimes they want something new to keep them interested. It's like eating your favorite meal every day; eventually you'll grow tired of it and you'll want something new. The CoD series hasn't been coming up with anything new since World At War.

2) And when people complained about over powered perks, killstreaks, and weapons, they decided "**** them" and kept them in the game. Enter Modern Warfare 3.

3) Elite wasn't a huge step. It was just a service used to compete with Battlefield 3 because it really did look like the Call of Duty killer of E3. If Elite was free, I might have agreed with you, but because you need to pay for a service that is supposed to be a convenience then I say it looks more like Activision milking everything they can out of the CoD series.

4) Who ever said Battlefield 3 was innovative? You must be delusional to think that game was the best game DICE has ever made. Ask any BF vet and they'll tell you how disappointing the game turned out to be. I see you're trying to bring other games into the argument to justify your claims. TBH, it's not helping your case when you decide to go cheap and target the worst game in a different series.

Can I ask a question, who actually plays COD for their single player campaigns? They're short and boring (in my opinion).

I do. It's the reason why I refused to buy MW3; they ruined the story for me once in MW2, so I'm not letting them ruin it for me again.

2012-05-08 00:06:00

Author:
CyberSora

Posts: 5551

I do. It's the reason why I refused to buy MW3; they ruined the story for me once in MW2, so I'm not letting them ruin it for me again.

I thought the story was okay for a CoD game. But the blowing up of the little girl and her family (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bKefq2ldDk) was too much. Personally, I think that things like that shouldn't be added to games. I don't care if they give you a warning, a chance to skip, and don't show any of the gore. It's still just too much. No Russian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhslvePOPbE) in MW2 wasn't that bad. I can see how people would be offended by that. But it wasn't as horrible as it was made out to be.

2012-05-08 01:11:00

Author:
Speedynutty68

Posts: 1614

I thought the story was okay for a CoD game. But the blowing up of the little girl and her family (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bKefq2ldDk) was too much. Personally, I think that things like that shouldn't be added to games. I don't care if they give you a warning, a chance to skip, and don't show any of the gore. It's still just too much. No Russian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhslvePOPbE) in MW2 wasn't that bad. I can see how people would be offended by that. But it wasn't as horrible as it was made out to be.

I do think that that was just a desperate attempt to get the player involved in the story. But unnecessary. Maybe having your character just seeing the event right after (not the girl, but the explosion as a whole from the distance) would do the trick, ? la CoD4. But it was MW3, so I digress.

2012-05-08 02:26:00

Author:
gdn001

Posts: 5891

Maybe having your character just seeing the event right after (not the girl, but the explosion as a whole from the distance) would do the trick

That would have been much, much better. Just let the player know the event happened. Maybe let the player know in some way (other than a scream. How about hearing a newscast later bringing it up describing the family a little?) that the girl was there. But don't actually show it. It was completely uncalled for.

2012-05-08 02:58:00

Author:
Speedynutty68

Posts: 1614

Bunch of legal stuff that may mean Black Ops II may not release. (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/05/07/infinity-ward-activision-black-ops-ii.aspx)

2012-05-08 03:53:00

Author:
warlord_evil

Posts: 4193

This is why you skip the campaign ENTIRELY and focus on multiplayer, and when that gets boring, well, ya got Minecraft.

Nah, I honestly didn't care about No Russian or that other one. Its a game, not real life, so Im not taking it offended.

2012-05-08 04:14:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

Giant wall of text

That's just it though. A lot of what you said is merely your opinion. I actually found MW2 incredibly fun and it wasn't until 7-8 months AFTER the game was released that people took advantage of OMA, DC, and noob-tubes. However you have to understand they were going through hell and back themselves with Activision and all the court stuff.

I also, completely disagree with you saying Treyarch stopped bringing out patches and made half-assed zombie maps. I actually liked a lot of those maps, and so did millions of other people that bought the DLC. They also never stopped updating the game when I used to play it and I played it until MW3 came out.

And if you seriously want a challenge you are looking at the wrong game my friend. Call of Duty is aimed to please the masses, that is why it does so well year after year. It's a game that is focused on the casual gamer. You should be able to pick up your controller, start up a match and get a few kills here and there, get a killstreak here and there, and overall -- have an enjoyable experience. If you want to find a challenge in Call of Duty; do what I do. Get yourself with a group of players and hit up gamebattles and start playing competitively. Treyarch did an amazing job with Black Ops, trying to please even the most hardcore of their community. That's why they created that one playlist I forget the name of. I used to play that playlist all the time, it was exactly what you said you look for in Call of Duty.

1) Obviously. Companies are always in it for the money, but since we're the customers we have a right to criticize a game to Hell and back, so your little "But you're wrong to hate them" speech is just as bad as our "but you're wrong to like them" rants. People want to pay for a game they're familiar with, but sometimes they want something new to keep them interested. It's like eating your favorite meal every day; eventually you'll grow tired of it and you'll want something new. The CoD series hasn't been coming up with anything new since World At War.

You missed my point. Why would Activision change up their formula? The game is a cookie-cutter, I won't disagree. But that is the WHOLE point of Call of Duty. It's a familiar face. Everyone knows how it will play. You can't possibly think Activision will take that big of a risk to change up their game. Think of it from a business stand point. You also can't possibly argue that people want something new, when the game does so well year after year. In fact, Black Ops 2 has already gotten ten times more pre-orders than Black Ops 1.

Trust me, the majority of people that play Call of Duty DO NOT want anything new. The only reason it seems like the fans want something new is because the minority of people that don't like the game are the only ones that are voicing out their opinions. The 95% of the community that are actually happy with the game stay silent so it seems much bigger than it actually is.

2) And when people complained about over powered perks, killstreaks, and weapons, they decided "**** them" and kept them in the game. Enter Modern Warfare 3.

What? Are we playing the same game? The only perks people complained about in MW2 were One Man Army, Commando, Danger Close, and Last Stand. All of which were removed for MW3. They also removed the game-ending killstreak that everyone complained about. I don't know which weapons you're talking about however.

If Elite was free, I might have agreed with you, but because you need to pay for a service that is supposed to be a convenience then I say it looks more like Activision milking everything they can out of the CoD series.

This part just boggles my mind, even to this day people think Elite costs money. Elite is FREE. Stat tracking, clan creating, weapon stats, map stats, all of the services that come standard in EVERY other game (think: bungie.net) are free.

The only services you pay for in Elite are joining tournaments for prizes, and being able to get all the DLC for that year for free (when I say free I mean you don't have to pay an additional fee.) These services are really only valuable for hardcore Call of Duty gamers who buy all of the DLC already. With this service, you are actually saving money if you were planning on getting all the DLC anyways.

4) Who ever said Battlefield 3 was innovative? You must be delusional to think that game was the best game DICE has ever made. Ask any BF vet and they'll tell you how disappointing the game turned out to be. I see you're trying to bring other games into the argument to justify your claims. TBH, it's not helping your case when you decide to go cheap and target the worst game in a different series.

Really? I'm not talking about the veterans of the franchise, I'm talking about the masses. I could spoon feed you all the information you need but you could just as easily find it under the Youtube comments for any BF3 vs COD video.

"CoD needs to change up their game. BF3 is a perfect example of changing up their game with the improved engine. Bigger maps. More guns and more vehicles." - Just an example I made up of pretty much every comment on Youtube.

2012-05-08 06:14:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino

Posts: 5250

2012-05-08 14:21:00

Author:
DominationMags

Posts: 1840

I was not a fan of the first Black Ops, mostly because the campaign was "eh" and the multiplayer was just hitmarker after hitmarker after hitmarker o_o

But Zombies, I loved every map except Call of The Dead. I think they did a nice work with the Zombie DLC, ESPECIALLY Ascension. Doesn't get much better than Ascension.
If they did a zombie-exclusive Call of Duty game, I would buy it.

What? Are we playing the same game? The only perks people complained about in MW2 were One Man Army, Commando, Danger Close, and Last Stand. All of which were removed for MW3. They also removed the game-ending killstreak that everyone complained about. I don't know which weapons you're talking about however.
I see lot of people complaining about Dead Man's Hand in MW3. But I don't want to get into this discussion so I'll take my leave.

2012-05-08 17:43:00

Author:
gdn001

Posts: 5891

I see lot of people complaining about Dead Man's Hand in MW3. But I don't want to get into this discussion so I'll take my leave.

Of course people complain. Who would want to die by such a stupid deathstreak. But dying, what is it? Seven times in a row without getting a kill? That's really bad. Got to offer the noobs SOMETHING.

Besides this really isn't about Modern Warfare. Infinity Ward's reign has pretty much ended ever since the majority of the actual Infinity Ward employees left the company. I have full confidence in Treyarch that they will make a game I truly enjoy. Much like Black Ops and the fact they didn't even have deathstreaks in the game. I had more fun with Black Ops than I did with MW2 or MW3 (didn't even bother buying MW3). Treyarch listens to the community much more than IW and Black Ops was actually really fun for me because of how much they listened to their "hardcore" community. I used to play gamebattles for that game day after day.

2012-05-08 18:29:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino

Posts: 5250

If they did a zombie-exclusive Call of Duty game, I would buy it.

I think we all would. The reason i prefer BO to MW3 is only because of zombies.

2012-05-08 19:20:00

Author:
PGdafrog

Posts: 277

Yes i think that Black Ops is awful. The graphics are so far away from mw2. they just didn't like they put the effort into it. the only good thing they did was take out quickscopers..... But why should they try to add something new to their game series? Its one of the best selling game franchises in history. Why do something different? People will buy it no matter what. I for sure will be. Even though it will be just the same to the previous Black Ops but with some sic-fi robots, it'll still sell, and i'm only interested for the multiplayer anyway. New guns will be good, as i've got bored of the mw3 ones. So yes people will hate on it, and i suggest playing battlefield then- it's simply brilliant- much better physics engine, just as good graphics, and no n00bs. anyways, happy shooting!

2012-05-08 20:35:00

Author:
bluesteel789

Posts: 159

Apparently Black Ops 2 will have a campaign for zombies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ic4fqinooU&list=PL6F%C2%ADE39EA36CB4C3A5&index=25&featur%C2%ADe=plpp_video

Don't know if it's real or not but it looks legit.

2012-05-08 23:24:00

Author:
Whalio Cappuccino

Posts: 5250

"The Future is Black"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

2012-05-12 00:13:00

Author:
Halfire

Posts: 132

Has anyone even stated that levels will be sandboxish?

2012-05-12 14:51:00

Author:
majormel84

Posts: 398

Ah, but we don't pretend. We know it sucks, and we're secretly glad it does. CoD may be the cancer of video games, but they're a necessity for the gaming community. Without them, how else are we going to keep out 15 year olds and a-holes from our games?

We might envy its popularity, but in the end we benefit from it.

Too bad EA wants their money and forces DICE to 'lower the complexity threshold' to appeal to this 'wider audience'. According to "Telemetry™ " the new fanbase likes maps like Metro. CoD noob infection nearly complete.

About BO, I only bought it because everyone was playing it. I wanted to get rid of it so bad I just gave it to a friend. Didn't buy another CoD after and will not in the future.

Without them, how else are we going to keep out 15 year old a-holes from our games?
I can only say keep a high learning curve.
Other than that I want to say I'm 15 and I want to buy a decent PC in the future (because the Mac we have can't run anything decently) to play Civ IV and ArmA II (maybe III but I'm not really a fan of future gizmos)

2012-06-10 22:05:00

Author:
zouz_

Posts: 125

Stuff COD play Tribes: Ascend the First Person Shooter for Men!

2012-06-13 11:01:00

Author:
waaghgork

Posts: 160

LBPCentral Archive Statistics

Posts: 1077139 Threads: 69970 Members: 9661 Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.