[CoD Black Ops 2] News and Discussion

super_furry · 02-05-2012 11:16am

So having listened through the Bombcast piece, there’s a lot of interesting stuff in there.

Multiple decisions to be made, that effect how the story unfolds. On-battlefield choices in different locations that make an impact into the story. There will be multiple endings.

RTS-lite elements where you take control of an entire SEAL team. You can pull out to an ‘overwatch’ mode where you direct or take control of them.

Aeriel dog-fighting missions.

New, much more tactical multi-player mode called Strikeforce.

Most important part though – Zombie mode is back.

TerrorFirmer · 02-05-2012 11:21am

Too funny!

klose · 02-05-2012 11:22am

If it has zombies imma buy it.

gcgirl · 02-05-2012 11:26am

It's starts off in the 80's and ends up in 2025 with Alex masons son David, heard someone named it "Call of Micheal Bay Black Robot 2"

ShadowHearth · 02-05-2012 11:37am

I am just wondering about one thing:

Cod elite? Will this have cod elite subscription too? Will one sub work for all cod games or you will have subs for each cod.
When I heard cod has subscription thing, I was sure they want to get more then 1 year out of it. As we know the biggest cod killer is next cod. So wtf will happen with mw3 now? Surely everyone will jump on new ship.

Just food for thought.

Kiith · 02-05-2012 12:07pm

super_furry wrote: »

So having listened through the Bombcast piece, there’s a lot of interesting stuff in there.

Multiple decisions to be made, that effect how the story unfolds. On-battlefield choices in different locations that make an impact into the story. There will be multiple endings.

RTS-lite elements where you take control of an entire SEAL team. You can pull out to an ‘overwatch’ mode where you direct or take control of them.

Aeriel dog-fighting missions.

New, much more tactical multi-player mode called Strikeforce.

Most important part though – Zombie mode is back.

Hmm, that actually sounds interesting. Might actually bother with this one if these features are done well.

Shiminay · 02-05-2012 12:10pm

You know what I meant by the "Daves" right - refers back to a Eurogamer piece where the author's Brother in Law (named Dave) was the sort of game "consumer" who laps all this nonsense up and just figures its how it works rather than questioning it. Caused quite a stir at the time...

Anyway, thanks to super_furry for the summary of the podcast, really nice to see that the franchise is trying to make some genuine changes to silence the nay-sayers. Let's hope the mob doesn't start demanding a new ending to the campaign because it's not what they wanted

Since I'm here, I did find myself wondering if this was going to have circular design too - any mention of that in the podcast?

super_furry · 02-05-2012 12:13pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I am just wondering about one thing:

Cod elite? Will this have cod elite subscription too? Will one sub work for all cod games or you will have subs for each cod.
When I heard cod has subscription thing, I was sure they want to get more then 1 year out of it. As we know the biggest cod killer is next cod. So wtf will happen with mw3 now? Surely everyone will jump on new ship.

Just food for thought.

The CoD Elite subscription is pretty much you paying up front for the DLC that will be released over the lifespan of the game. Same thing to Gears of War 3's season pass, with a few added incentives - exclusive competitions and stat stuff. So I'm sure that it'll be the exact same with Black Ops 2 - you're paying for all the DLC up front, at a significant discount.

krudler · 02-05-2012 12:19pm

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

Doesnt make sense to advertise a game thats incomplete (single player that is)

Nearly every game you see at E3 is incomplete, some games arecworked on until a few weeks before release, sure theres trailers for GTAV and thats not out for months

Twilightning · 02-05-2012 12:37pm

hooradiation wrote: »

It's ok we all forget things from time to time, but I guess if you're going to predict the future with such accuracy then something has gotta give, right?

You're saying this as if you somehow think this game isn't going to be on the same crappy engine just to barely squeeze 60FPS out of consoles for another year with a forgettable linear Michael Bay corridor single player campaign you can breeze through in 5 hours along with the standard perk filled, tired arcade multiplayer on tiny maps. You have to remember this is coming from the same crowd of eejits who were paid to say their game engine 'is a Porsche' and that people who say they don't know what they're talking about when they said Cawadoody is a copy and paste fest. I beg to differ.

I can't tell the future, but it's pretty easy to predict what's coming based on the past. History is an awesome thing like that.

yimrsg · 02-05-2012 12:37pm

the-itchy-scratchy-poochie-show1.png?w=655

"So think of a game set in the world of Terminator salvation, but without terminators so we can't be sued."

hooradiation · 02-05-2012 12:45pm

Twilightning wrote: »

I can't tell the future,

Then surely the sensible thing to do would be to not try?

Twilightning · 02-05-2012 12:50pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Then surely the sensible thing to do would be to not try?

You pretty much ignored the entirety of my post I see. I didn't say I was telling the future, I'm making a prediction based on the general outline of past events that have repeated themselves several times over and Activision's tendency to play it safe with the same formula that'll maximise revenue rather than trying something new. If all you've got is "But you can't tell the future!" then you're really grasping at straws.

Ian7 · 02-05-2012 12:58pm

hmmm, I wonder where this is going?

super_furry · 02-05-2012 1:00pm

In fairness, you've pretty much ignored the posts here that spell out exactly why people believe this will be different and what significant changes the developers are trying to make to the core gameplay.

gizmo · 02-05-2012 1:01pm

Twilightning wrote: »

You're saying this as if you somehow think this game isn't going to be on the same crappy engine just to barely squeeze 60FPS out of consoles for another year with a forgettable linear Michael Bay corridor single player campaign you can breeze through in 5 hours along with the standard perk filled, tired arcade multiplayer on tiny maps. You have to remember this is coming from the same crowd of eejits who were paid to say their game engine 'is a Porsche' and that people who say they don't know what they're talking about when they said Cawadoody is a copy and paste fest. I beg to differ.

Outside of the copy and paste thing, at least from a design perspective, I don't see anything particularly wrong with what they said. Their engine isn't crappy, it runs at a solid 60fps and has seen incremental updates to its graphical features along the way. They could hold off on an annual iteration and build an entirely new engine from scratch but as I said in the other thread, there's no way they could achieve a meaningful upgrade to bring it up to par with the likes of the CryEngine or Unreal 3 and maintain that kind of frame rate.

Big Knox · 02-05-2012 1:09pm

I have always had a soft spot for CoD games. I loved the originals and MW was an excellent game ahead of it's time. WaW was decent and worth a play through but since then it's been pretty much a let down.

MW2 was just bad to be fair, I preferred Black Ops and even enjoyed the multiplayer with friends but MW3 was a complete joke. Glorified DLC repackaged and if you can't admit that then you're going into the "fanboy" category i'm afraid.

This however looks interesting again, if they can address the main issues and bring something new into the genre then i'm all for it as even though the last few games have been let downs the series as a whole can't be overlooked as it has a great history. I would have liked to see a new engine and you have to ask the questions are treyarch capable of making one but it can be overlooked as it still holds up reasonably well and can do a job. I would have more faith if they weren't releasing it in the same time frame as previous years and actually gave themselves some decent dev time to get a solid release with sufficient changes and polish to save the series.

Time will tell if it's just another disappointment and meh fest but they are at least trying to address the issues that have plagued the series since MW2 and that's a good thing.

iMuse · 02-05-2012 1:11pm

Twilightning wrote: »

You pretty much ignored the entirety of my post I see. I didn't say I was telling the future, I'm making a prediction based on the general outline of past events that have repeated themselves several times over and Activision's tendency to play it safe with the same formula that'll maximise revenue rather than trying something new. If all you've got is "But you can't tell the future!" then you're really grasping at straws.

They are a business, the cheaper they can make the game the better for them and it still sells millions so why invest millions in a new engine from a business perspective? There are few companies innovating at present due to cost.

cloud493 · 02-05-2012 1:19pm

Not describing a call of duty game as a glorified map pack makes you a fanboy?

SeantheMan · 02-05-2012 1:25pm

joshrogan wrote: »

I want them to make another world at war, my favourite COD to date.

COD2 was so much better.
Probably the best game in the series, followed closely by COD4, then UO I'd say.

TerrorFirmer · 02-05-2012 1:28pm

I thought World at War was better than COD2 in that Treyarch took it to a much darker, brutal place on the Eastern Front. It would be interesting to see a new WW2 title from either Infinity Ward of Treyarch, but I'm guessing it simply won't happen as the market demand isn't there. World at War online was stellar.

Retr0gamer · 02-05-2012 1:43pm

They're getting a lot of mileage out of that Quake 3 Arena engine.

gizmo · 02-05-2012 1:50pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

They're getting a lot of mileage out of that Quake 3 Arena engine.

Outside of some of the lowest level functionality, there's very little left of the old Q3A codebase in the modern iterations of the engine.

Twilightning · 02-05-2012 1:53pm

super_furry wrote: »

In fairness, you've pretty much ignored the posts here that spell out exactly why people believe this will be different and what significant changes the developers are trying to make to the core gameplay.

Then I'll address an earlier post you made regarding the new features.

super_furry wrote: »

So having listened through the Bombcast piece, there’s a lot of interesting stuff in there.

Multiple decisions to be made, that effect how the story unfolds. On-battlefield choices in different locations that make an impact into the story. There will be multiple endings.

The dialogue from the reveal trailer is awful and Cawadoody hasn't always been especially gripping from a story perspective. It's described by numerous people here as a dumb Michael Bay movie you kill a few hours with. People aren't going to want to play the single player again out of genuine interest to see what could have happened, they'll more than likely do it for the achievements they get doing it.

RTS-lite elements where you take control of an entire SEAL team. You can pull out to an ‘overwatch’ mode where you direct or take control of them.

RTS gameplay elements generally don't go down well on a console. There's this and the fact that people probably won't remember such a feature even exists after they've breezed through the story and moved onto the multiplayer for the next year until the next annual iteration is shoved down our throats.

Aeriel dog-fighting missions.

Mandatory on-rails vehicle section. Whether it's on the ground or in the air doesn't bother me. People were pretty hyped for a similar section in Battlefield 3 and it turned out to be as dull as anything.

New, much more tactical multi-player mode called Strikeforce.

I don't really know any details on this but if they're actually including a mode that promotes tactics and teamwork then grand. As it is, Call of Duty is anything but tactical.

Most important part though – Zombie mode is back.

Why is this addition cited as the most important part? Zombie survival games are everywhere, be it wave based or otherwise. Left 4 Dead, Dead Island, Killing Floor, I think even Red Dead Redemption got the obligatory zombie expansion pack. It's a cool addition if you've got no other alternative I guess.

gizmo wrote: »

Outside of the copy and paste thing, at least from a design perspective, I don't see anything particularly wrong with what they said. Their engine isn't crappy, it runs at a solid 60fps and has seen incremental updates to its graphical features along the way. They could hold off on an annual iteration and build an entirely new engine from scratch but as I said in the other thread, there's no way they could achieve a meaningful upgrade to bring it up to par with the likes of the CryEngine or Unreal 3 and maintain that kind of frame rate.

I suppose there is no other way to keep the 60FPS on a console although I wouldn't say it's 100% solid, there are framerate drops. It's just disappointing in general. I'd go so far to argue as consoles are stifling technological advancements in a lot of areas for different publishers but that's another day's work.

iMuse wrote: »

They are a business, the cheaper they can make the game the better for them and it still sells millions so why invest millions in a new engine from a business perspective? There are few companies innovating at present due to cost.

I suppose I'd be 100% fine with this if I was actually on the business end of things but I'm not, I'm a consumer. If McDonald's started charging me to use the jacks in their restaurants I wouldn't just say "Ah sure they're a business just trying to maximise profit, good on them!", I'd complain they were nickel and diming people any way they could, which is what Activision are doing. I'd say Bobby's laughing all the way down to the bank.

gizmo · 02-05-2012 2:10pm

Twilightning wrote: »

I suppose there is no other way to keep the 60FPS on a console although I wouldn't say it's 100% solid, there are framerate drops. It's just disappointing in general. I'd go so far to argue as consoles are stifling technological advancements in a lot of areas for different publishers but that's another day's work.

I don't think anyone could argue that developing primarily for consoles is holding things back technically (assuming that more work isn't put into the PC version at least) but at the end of the day, does it really matter to the majority of gamers? Take CoD for example, they've sacrificed graphical fidelity for that 60fps which has, at this stage, become the cornerstone of the series. If they were to ditch that restriction, drop down to 30fps and ramp up the graphics side of things, do you think the 30-odd million who bought and play the game would be happy?

hooradiation · 02-05-2012 2:12pm

Twilightning wrote: »

You pretty much ignored the entirety of my post I see.

Yes, because your amazing insistence that code reuse and sensible software design is somehow a bad thing and you know better was so stupefyingly terrible I focused on the least wrong thing you said.

And yeah, his comparison to a Porsche is perfectly bloody apt if you'd read the article you'd bothered to link but I guess some internet guy with the all the powers of being some guy on the internet knows better, right?

iMuse · 02-05-2012 2:24pm

Small bit about the Multiplayer from that IGN link

Details on multiplayer remain scarce, but Treyarch confirms that all multiplayer will take place in the 2025 universe. Expect all of the tech previously discussed, alongside a revamped combat training system for new players. The goal at this point isn't to just make Black Ops 2's multiplayer fun to play, but fun to watch, and Treyarch would love to break into the E-Sports scene. You can also expect Activision's Call of Duty social network, Call of Duty Elite, to be integrated at launch.

krudler · 02-05-2012 2:34pm

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

Are you talking about the graphics? Thats like advertising a car without finnishing the paint work.

yeah, the e3 demos for stuff are often work in progress graphics with tweaks and additions to be made, same as movies often have early trailers with uninfinished cgi and the like.

Twilightning · 02-05-2012 2:35pm

gizmo wrote: »

I don't think anyone could argue that developing primarily for consoles is holding things back technically (assuming that more work isn't put into the PC version at least) but at the end of the day, does it really matter to the majority of gamers? Take CoD for example, they've sacrificed graphical fidelity for that 60fps which has, at this stage, become the cornerstone of the series. If they were to ditch that restriction, drop down to 30fps and ramp up the graphics side of things, do you think the 30-odd million who bought and play the game would be happy?

The main problem I have is that of the 30 million or so people who buy the game, a majority of them don't know quality any better. If they did, a whole lot more of them would be upset with the state the series is in now instead of lapping it up every time and being happy with what they're being fed.

hooradiation wrote: »

Yes, because your amazing insistence that code reuse and sensible software design is somehow a bad thing and you know better was so stupefyingly terrible I focused on the least wrong thing you said.

Maybe if you'd actually bothered to look at the video I linked, you'd see that without a shadow of a doubt, the series has devolved into something a lot more than "code reuse and sensible software design". Weapon and character models and animations, map assets and objects, HUD and UI, weapon and character audio, all shamelessly ripped from previous iterations in the series. Copy and pasted.

hooradiation wrote: »

And yeah, his comparison to a Porsche is perfectly bloody apt if you'd read the article you'd bothered to link but I guess some internet guy with the all the powers of being some guy on the internet knows better, right?

So your argument is a condescending "You're just some guy on the internet, you don't know any better", as if you or any of the people who make this game are above me in some way. You should probably structure your posts a bit better, read and look at what's presented to you and attack the content of the posts themselves and not the poster, as you're clearly so fond of doing.

I had a good read through the article, and one of the quotes really stood out.

If you put Modern Warfare 2 next to Modern Warfare 3 you would see a huge difference. Look at all the character models, look at all the gun models, look at the reflections, look at the water. There is so much that we've added, so when someone says 'cut and paste', I don't even want to talk to them because they don't know. They just don't know. They have no idea.

Yeah, that video clearly shows the clear amount of difference between the two! If you think otherwise, you're deluded.

Leeg17 · 02-05-2012 2:36pm

I'm not hyping this up much looking from the trailer (but I said I wouldn't hype this like I did for Mw3 and a lesser extent Blops) and to make a big judgement at this stage is a bit much imo.

[CoD Black Ops 2] News and Discussion

Comments