Travel back in time to fight for the future and save the past... or something.
Like many franchises before it,
Call of Duty has become a lumbering juggernaut, susceptible to both overzealous fans and dismissive newcomers, as well as the thought that someday... we will all die. How could
Treyarch and
Activision ensure that their follow-up to the insanely successful
Black Ops with a satisfying extension of that Cold War opus?
Clearly, changes needed to be made, across the board, to keep the fan base hooked for just one more level, while also providing a compelling campaign. Could Treyarch pull it off or is the fate of this juggernaut brand a little too black?
Right upfront,
Black Ops II locks players in for the most varied
Call of Duty campaign,
ever. That's not saying much, given every previous title was a linear roller coaster, largely uncomplicated but enthralling in its twists and turns, delivering players from point A to point B. This is not the case in Treyarch's sequel. Players can fail objectives or take responsibility for whether key characters live or die. The choices you make will affect the final outcome, reminding players of
Mass Effect's branching character paths.
This mechanic of choice is well-implemented here, but players will largely find themselves unconcerned and unaffected by the conflict here. In fact, it's possible to feel fatigued after it's all said and done, notably because many paths revolve around series hallmarks and repetitive tasks, like "shoot these guys," "go here," and "tap X to overcome the killer nano robot infection."
Still, Treyarch's moving and shaking here is admirable, well-timed, and much needed. They'll never be considered the "A-team" of
Call of Duty without putting a significant spin on the easily stagnate first-person shooter genre. Unfortunately,
Black Ops II isn't the game to put them over Infinity Ward or many of their industry competitors. Several moments of poor execution and confusion break the campaign experience from truly taking hold.
In one early mission, you're tasked with rescuing your ol' pal Woods. As you throw him over your soldier, the awkward positioning of these two character models makes it seem like the player is riding Woods like a sideways horse.
Black Ops II also falters when you take the reigns of an actual horse and zigzag around a deadly battlefield completing objectives. It takes too long to get from one objective to the next, and more often than not, you will be bored while in transit.
The other end of Treyarch's sweeping changes affects the way players equip their multiplayer soldiers. The Pick 10 system allows you to load up with a mixture of 10 perks, weapons, or attachments. Want two attachments on your primary gun? Trade in your sidearm or grenade. Want to run around the battlefield with 6 perks? You'll have to go with just your knife, but it's possible.
The Pick 10 is a step in the right direction, but the immediate experience leaves multiplayer feeling unbalanced and weighted in favor of experimentation. That's a good thing, but
Call of Duty's always bloodthirsty horde of diehard fans will quickly boil the system down to a few playable options. This remains consistent with Treyarch's track record.
The original
Black Ops eventually proved unplayable if you weren't willing to learn and exploit the overpowered Famas rifle. I see similar things in this sequel's future, no matter what platform you're playing on.
Zombies mode also returns to add value, whether you get into the secret subplots, like screwing around cooperatively with friends, or will remain completely ignorant of the joys within (like me). It's comforting to know that the replay value of
Call of Duty's teamwork mode is available to back up the $60 price tag.
I say that because
Black Ops II takes one step backward for every step forward. Embracing the same minute improvements the simulation sports genre has, Treyarch makes an argument for advancement in the series but doesn't seal the deal in execution.
So if you're looking for an excuse to cave and buy yet another
Call of Duty? Go ahead! There's enough new to explore and enjoy. But if you're tired of
Call of Duty, that's what you're gonna get here, so don't bother feigning surprise when you're disappointed yet again.
Based on Xbox 360 version. Copy provided by publisher.
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
Bottom line, I'm not the core Call of Duty player you are, so I might not "get it," but I think I've put the overall quality of Black Ops II in layman's terms.
TheJx4
Joined: Jun 2011
"Thanks for the feedback, and yeah, I wrote this for GameRevolution. If it were for a more mainstream outlet obviously I would have explained more, but is it really necessary?"
That's not acceptable. If this were a website about Call of Duty, sure, just telling us what's new and giving a few details would be a nice little review. But from a point of view from someone who doesn't play a lot of Call of Duty, this doesn't really tell you anything.
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
Don't you already have the game? Obviously the review wasn't *this* important.
TheJx4
Joined: Jun 2011
Green_Lantern
Joined: Nov 2008
Um...What?
What part of the internet have you been living in?
TheJx4
Joined: Jun 2011
omnimodis78
Joined: Jul 2012
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
TheJx4
Joined: Jun 2011
Lien
Joined: Feb 2008
The real Soyuz II launch date according to... SPACE HISTORY: October 25, 1968 (they didn't even had the technology for such a space launch even in 1965)
Treyarch ladies and gentleman! Changing history cause... CROSSBOW!
TheJx4
Joined: Jun 2011
Lien
Joined: Feb 2008
And this is relevant cause Treyarch could of use Soyuz II as tangential learning (the idea that fans of a work would research on the settings) similar to how call of duty did with the earlier installments. But instead, they insult history for the sake of gameplay. That's not an understatement, this is what happen. I could write a five page essay on how the soyuz changed humanity and make an homage to the people who died, but instead i'll say this: I refuse to defend a work that would undermine a people (here: the Russians) to enforce the heroism setting. And that, my friend, is a trend that's been going for far too long.
Chunibrow
Joined: Mar 2010
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
TheJx4
Joined: Jun 2011
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
When did anyone say this? If Treyarch and pulled it off, implemented these changes and put out a truly capable product, I'd be saying they surpassed IW, but these changes proved to be too sweeping and the quality just isn't there.
spartan317
Joined: Dec 2005
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
Chunibrow
Joined: Mar 2010
spartan317
Joined: Dec 2005
Again I apologize if you were offended by my OPINION however I assumed it was safe to refer to them as they do have troubles with proper spelling, grammar and syntax.
and yes I do know that they are in agreement that I "mager sux dix and stuf"
Chunibrow
Joined: Mar 2010
Sammo
Joined: Oct 2005
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
cereal13killer
Joined: Nov 2008
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
De-Ting
Joined: Nov 2006
Still an enjoyable game, just not when you have no idea what you're supposed to be doing. I'm still holding off on the multiplayer until some things get fixed.
elmoreoocyte
Joined: Apr 2012
I don't care what the fanboys say in comments. I appreciate the honesty, and at this point not going into 100% detail on a game that any gamer is already very familiar with seems appropriate.
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
Alex_Osborn
Joined: Jan 2012
Icepick
Joined: Dec 2002
Chunibrow
Joined: Mar 2010
elmoreoocyte
Joined: Apr 2012