It’s the day FPS fans have all been waiting for, and it’s finally here. The official announcement trailer for Black Ops 2 has arrived, confirming that the game will most certainly not be set in the 1960′s. Futuristic soldiers, weaponry, and American cities under attack are the stars of the show, promising a new direction for the previously Cold War-era series.
In what was a completely predictable twist, most of these images and brief story details leaked ahead of the intended time. While that provided fans a few hours to debate exactly why the developers at Treyarch would abandon the Cold War era in favor of modern combat, the trailer makes one thing clear: hostilities between America and Russia never warmed. The Cold War has picked up where it left off, plunging players into a new future of unparalleled conflict, where the weapons and technology designed to protect America have been hijacked.
We’ve got our own theories on exactly what this means for the series and Call of Duty brand as a whole, but have a look at the official announcement trailer for Black Ops 2 first:
The same cityscape bathed in fire and explosions glimpsed from the early screenshots is featured, now identified as Los Angeles. Whether this means that the characters and campaign will be centered on a single soldier, like Alex Mason of the first Black Ops, or extend throughout the conflict is unclear.
What is clear is that fans have seemingly had their most beloved character returned to them. After early hints were leaked that Sgt. Frank Woods had in fact survived the events of the original game, he has returned to narrate, and set the stage for this new and unimaginable conflict.
While urban conflicts were the main attraction in Modern Warfare 3, things are far more advanced here. What is most surprising is how strongly tied the sequel seems to the story established with the original game. Hopefully this continues throughout the story (is the young man glimpsed in the action Woods’ own offspring?) and isn’t just a set-up for typical missions.
More details on the plot and setting for Black Ops 2 are sure to be arriving soon, but what are your reactions to this first trailer? Are you happy to see a more futuristic fiction and arsenal being implemented, or were you hoping for more brainwashing and jungle combat? Think that it’s only a matter of time before Alex Mason reappears, or will Woods be taking the spotlight this time? Leave us your thoughts in the comments.
Loading ...Call of Duty: Black Ops II releases November 13, 2012 for the PS3, Xbox 360 and PC.
-
Follow me on Twitter @andrew_dyce.
PlayStation 4 Slogan Revealed; Next-Gen Xbox Name Possibly Confirmed 
Kevin Conroy WILL Return For ‘Batman: Arkham Origins’ 
‘Batman: Arkham Origins’ Official Story Trailer: Deadshot, Explosions, Easter Eggs, & More! 
Lionhead Job Listings Hint at ‘Fable 4′ ‘Reimagining’ the Franchise 
From a VISUAL perspective only, since I haven’t played the game, cannot make any statement about the gameplay, this game looks TERRIBLE, as in graphics. I mean, wow, is it possible that somehow their graphics are actually getting worse? I could have sworn the last COD games didn’t look good but still looked better… Also, what is with the slow motion bullet casings??? Why is it that every scene in this trailer when there are people shooting weapons that it looks like the bullet casings are just slowly floating out of the weapon or just gently falling out of the weapon? Anyone realize that they are EJECTED as in QUICKLY and quite far sometimes??
Anyway, those are just my VISUAL observations, again, can’t make a statement about the gameplay for obvious reasons…
But about the story, so somehow, the enemy can just take control of all of our unmanned drones? Like there’s just one master key or something without any kind of kill-safe? Kind of hard to believe… But I guess most people don’t buy these games for an intriguing story… And the vehicles in the game look ridiculous, not at all practical, not at all what the military would actually purchase and use, with the exception of the fighter jet.
sounds like termiantor, guess they didnt learn the lesson
I’m surprised by how dated the graphics are in the trailer. It looks light years behind BF3.
That being said, setting, features all sound sweet to me… and DIFFERENT.
I’m actually writing something about the graphics now which goes against what the trailer showcased.
Why are the graphics so horrendous? I feel like we jumped back a console generation. I am 100% serious when I say I thought for a second that this was an April fools joke, but then I remembered it is May.
I thought the graphics were the same Black Ops, if not a little better. Nothing compared to CryENGINE 3 or Frostbite 2.0, though.
Hehe, you’re funny.
i think they got the wrong calendar.
What was the footage from? A Wii. It looks awful.
anyone who buys this game does not have the right to call themselves a gamer, weapons expert or consider themselves to be apart of anything in life. only a true low life sheep would buy this.
everything i have seen looks terrible and i can sure as hell bet that the actual gameplay will be complete garbage (sp). MP will be the same garbage they’ve been spoon feeding morons for the past 6+ years (including CoD4). i’m glad that there are alot of good shooters coming out this year, such as borderlands 2, far cry 3, bioshock infinite and halo 4, those games will suck the sales right out of this recycled load of bs and hopefully (though i doubt it) will start what will be the slow burning of the franchise (until someone with a brain steps in and start fresh again).
See, I thought the trailer only entitled me to having my own opinion, not also designating everyone who disagrees to being a “true low life sheep.” Usually to be a low life, you have to be an amoral criminal, not just enjoy a franchise openly. I’m glad I have you here to think for me.
Actually that’s Loki’s job, haven’t you seen the Avengers?
just shut the hell up who cares halo sucks balls and no im not defening bop 2 be happy its not the same bs . am buying it and idgaf what u got to say about it can’t wait to play 8 player zombies
just shut the h up who cares halo sucks balls and no im not defening bop 2 be happy its not the same bs . am buying it and idgaf what u got to say about it can’t wait to play 8 player zombies
just shut the h up who cares halo sucks and no im not defening bop 2 be happy its not the same bs . am buying it and idgaf what u got to say about it can’t wait to play 8 player zombies
Well Halo has better graphics then this o-O
Its funny how people want to label or call others names for liking something that they don’t approve of like their “opinion” is what holds weight lmao. Oh so when these millions of people buy BO2 they are not considered “gamers”? Well good for them because most of the time it’s the ones who call themselves “hardcore gamers” who are whiny and always pointing fingers and making people who love games look like idiots. If people want to play COD, leave them be, there shouldn’t even be an issue here.
you have no clue wtf you’re talking about do you ? CoD is aimed at kids and very casual gamers hence why it’s so damn easy and straight forward, where as games like battlefield 3 and gears of war are aimed at more patient and mature players who are willing to invest the time in learning guns etc.
the only thing CoD has done is create a stupid generation of gamers who want everything spoon fed to them. the franchise has hardly evolved. people are to scared to try something different something new and innovative b/c they’re scared of sucking b/c CoD rewards players for every stupid little thing they do.
it’s time the franchise died out for a couple of years so that people with the innovation can step in and blow our minds away with some epic FPS action.
the reason most gaming enthusiasts are pissed off is b/c CoD kills any and all innovation – people think if they copy CoD they will make mega bucks, but the reality is that the fanboys will just hate and bad mouth new shooters that even slightly feel the same thus both hurting the publisher/developers and innovation altogether >:(
Innovative FPS action…These are the same people that asked for “innovative” RPG games. These people are the reason we got Dragon Age 2. These people are the reason we got a crappy ending to Mass Effect 3. Why does a selling formula have to do a 180? Because you don’t like it? Well millions of other people like COD the way it is, so this “innovative” doesn’t sound like something they would want. If they did want it then they could just pick up Gears or Battlefield (lol). What type of innovation do you want them to do in the FPS genre? Also do people that use the word “innovative” know what it means? (hint: Dragon Age 2 is not innovative)
COD does not kill innovation. Look at Team Fortress or Gotham City Imposters both have shown that they don’t have to follow the COD formula to work.
Note: I don’t play FPS’ or TPS’, I do play RPG’s and Strategy games. So what happens to COD well not effect me. But I don’t want to see it die or go away, people enjoy COD so I’m happy for them.
Actually, Gotham City Impostors did take a lot from CoD. It had lots of features that CoD had. The difference is that GCI included additional features that made it wacky and goofy, thus different and innovative. So, to some extent, GCI did follow the CoD formula.
To tell you the truth I don’t see a difference (besides graphics) between COD and Battlefield. They all look like FPS’ to me.
Then you obviously aren’t a gamer if you can’t distinguish the differences between two games. Actually, that probably means you have an IQ of 79.
@Matt I play RPG’s and Strategy games so I guess no I’m not a “gamer” to you. The only FPS that I played “hardcore” was Counter-Strike. Now what (besides controls) is different about Battlefield to Counter-Strike? Graphics? New game modes? Guns? A respawn ability? Setting? Doesn’t sound like Battlefield is all that innovative. It starting to sound like COD and BF are both just pretty Counter-Strike games.
Then again I expect you not to answer this seeing that my IQ is around 79 about 10 points off from legally retarded. Also I said I don’t see a difference (besides graphics this is key) between COD and Battlefield and I stand by that since they both look like basic FPS’ besides the graphics. Then again looking at your icon this will be just like talking to a stone wall.
I’ve never played nor seen Counter-Strike in action, so I have no idea how it compares to other FPSs.
As for how BF and CoD compare, it’s more like contrast. The only things that make them similar are that they are both FPSs and military shooters. But their gameplay is completely different. There are too many differences to count. But seeing as how you haven’t really played BF or CoD, you don’t know that. If you played BF and CoD for one day each, you would notice the many differences between the two franchises.
“There are too many differences to count. But seeing as how you haven’t really played BF or CoD, you don’t know that. If you played BF and CoD for one day each, you would notice the many differences between the two franchises.”
A non-answer it is. I can try to answer it with my limited experience with both games. The speeds of both games (COD & Battlefield) are basically equal. So I’ll focus on game play controls that tweak each game.
Battlefield when aiming down the sights of my gun it takes a few moments, as my soldier has to swing the weapon up to eye level. That’s a neat little game play mechanic, got to have that weapon ready when I round a corner. Running is indefinite. I can go prone. Jumping over low cover my soldier vaults the impediment in its path. It’s a tight shooter.
Call of Duty on the other hand has auto-aim and quick-scoping making the game feel like a twitch shooter. This series (with its maps) reminds me of the smallest maps of Counter-Strike. Get the fastest weapon with the best aim or take a shotgun and wait around a corner to get your kills. Don’t run out into the open are you’ll get hit by a sniper. Also a tight shooter.
Other than these things I don’t really see how anyone can call Battlefield or Call of Duty completely different in game play. They play the same as all FPS’ have played since Halo since 2001. There are just minor game play tweaks, which I’ve mentioned, that make the games “feel” different. So they both play and handle like every other FPS’ for the last ten years (not counting game play tweaks like fast turn), nope not seeing a bit of difference.
p.s. Gotham City Impostors is basically Counter-Strike with a goofy setting.
Wow, if those are the only differences you can name, then you really haven’t played either game much.
BF3: The graphics are way better as we’ve mentioned. You can drive buggies, jeeps, tanks, and fly jets and helicopters anywhere you can find them. No killstreaks, deathstreaks, pointstreaks, and you can’t earn perks for getting X amount of kills. The smallest full maps WAY bigger than the biggest CoD map. The pacing is fairly slow. Players are way more spread out (in Conquest anyway) due to the giant maps. Guns have realistic recoil. Sniper shots are affected by bullet drop. There are way more sights to put on any given gun. There are bipods, laser sights, tactical lights, and more. Movement is realistic, and there are animations for jumping over obstacles and diving. You can see your feet. You can throw down ammo and medical packs. Almost everything you see is destructible. There are mortars and stationary weapons. You can rent servers and play other players’ servers.
CoD: No vehicles except for killstreaks and pointstreaks. More of an arcadey feel. Way easier. You can only break windows and trash bags. Little recoil. Smaller maps, especially in MW3. Theater mode.
And that’s not even close to all of the differences. So you see, BF and CoD are two vastly different FPS franchises. Overall, CoD is easier and arcadey, and BF is harder and more realistic.
As a person that plays FPS games maybe you can tell me why Call of Duty is easier and Battlefield is harder? Is it some magical controller setup that makes one easier and the other harder? Or is it the multiplayer competition or lack thereof? Is it based on company? Why would anyone consider an EA game hard? Why is Activision/Blizzard considered easy? Is it based on game release time? If that’s the case then no game from EA or Activision on a yearly cycle can be considered hardcore, including Battlefield since there’s been a new game yearly since 2002. We have to say that the Assassin’s Creed series is for casuals also. How is COD easier or BF harder than any other FPS out there?
Also the “more realistic” thing needs to just stop. Any game that has regenerating health can’t nor should it be called realistic. Gun tweaks sound like they are very important to you. Sounds cosmetic to me. Vehicles? Great Halo had that in 2001. They play the same as all FPS’ have played since Halo since 2001. There are just minor game play tweaks, which I’ve mentioned, that make the games “feel” different. So they both play and handle like every other FPS’ for the last ten years (not counting game play tweaks like fast turn), nope not seeing a bit of difference.
Then again this is like riding up to a line of people waiting to see the newest Star Trek movie and yelling out “Star Wars sucks” before driving away.
Battlfield games haven’t come out every year for consoles, and I play BF on PS3. I’m not saying EA games are hard and Activision games are easy, I’m saying BF games are harder and CoD games are easier. What makes it that way? Well, there’s more swaying in BF. There’s realistic recoil in BF. In CoD, it’s more like you’re a camera on wheels with human arms and hydraulics so you can jump. BF maps are bigger, so it’s harder to find people. There are vehicles that you don’t have to earn that can kill you in BF. There are no overpowered perks in BF. There are no killstreaks, pointstreaks, deathstreaks, or perks for getting kills in BF. All of those things and more make BF a harder game, and yes, more realistic. I’m not calling BF realistic; I’m calling it MORE realistic than CoD or most other FPSs.
If you spent some time playing different FPSs, you would really see the difference between them. Why would there be a war between Halo and CoD if they were virtually the same? BF vs. CoD? If all FPSs were virtually the same, why would there be any need for new ones at all? You’re basically saying that CoD is the same as Crysis, but it’s really not. Halo is the same as Child of Eden? BF is the same as Gotham City Impostors? If they were all the same but with minor tweaks, the FPS shooter genre would only be one franchise because there would only be need for one. FPSs are just as diverse as any other genre. You’re just inexperienced in the FPS world so you don’t know the diversity it contains. I’m not familiar with JRPGs, but that doesn’t mean I can say that they’re all the same thing, because they’re most likely not, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many? You just don’t have enough FPS playtime to argue that they’re all the same.
2002 Battlefield 1942
2003 Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
2003 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2005 Battlefield 2
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
2006 Battlefield 2142
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2011 Battlefield 3
It’s true that since I play games that take more thought than “shot till it dies” I might not under stand the subtle little nuances that can be found in Battlefield or Call of Duty. Then again I find your arguments disingenuous. I’m not bringing any other FPS’ franchises into this (besides Halo, GCI and Counter-Strike) since I don’t play them. But I have played COD and BF there is about a dimes worth of difference between them.
These differences you speak of are all basically cosmetic. The more things you point out the more Counter-Strike seems like the greatest gaming formula ever made. It’s the difference between having two resources to mine or three in an RTS.
“Why would there be a war between Halo and CoD if they were virtually the same? BF vs. CoD? If all FPSs were virtually the same, why would there be any need for new ones at all?” There well always be people that fight over whatever franchise they think is the best. There well always be hipsters that hate whatever is popular. You also bring up Child of Eden, which is a Kinect game that doesn’t play anything like BF or COD since it an on rails music FPS that is not a good comparison. Plus companies well always fight it out for better sells than there competition. There is far more money to be made from having more games that are only barely different than having a few games that are vastly different. It’s the reason that CVS and Walgreen’s always open stores right across the street from each other, they keep each other in business. It’s the same for FPS, COD and BF keep each other in business.
“There are no killstreaks, pointstreaks, deathstreaks, or perks for getting kills in BF. All of those things and more make BF a harder game, and yes, more realistic.” Wouldn’t all this stuff make COD harder? Somebody gets on a killing spree and gets a bunch of perks is harder to take down then someone who didn’t right? Knowing where the maps and what’s overpowered and where would make the game more strategic not less. Those things seem to point to COD being the harder game not BF.
Again I have to ask: how is (in the ever-loving name of skin cancer and Jersey Shore) COD an easier game than BF? Is Halo the easiest FPS since it has all those things plus shields?
COD: I am Counter-Strike with killstreaks and repawning.
BF: I am Counter-Strike with vehicles and bigger maps…did I forget respawning?
COD/BF: We are Counter-Strike with better graphics we also have respawning.
This could be made into a song. Maynard James Keenan could write the lyrics and sing the song. It could be on the next Tool album. It could have Zack de la Rocha supplying vocals as well. It could be called “Dirty Low Brow 90s Games With Modern Graphics” or “Shot Shot Our Genre Hasn’t Innovated In A Decade.” But then again all this is mute since any game that needs EA Origins to play is…well I wouldn’t touch Origins with my sisters PC.
@Cariannis
Don’t forget Medal of Honor 2010 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter. I know it’s not DICE but you get what I’m implying. EA and Activision are doing the EXACT SAME THING as Rob stated, funny thing is only Activision is the only one receiving flak for it. I think they only stepped up because Activision forced their hand.
@ATG Yea, I tried Medal of Honor once game didn’t really feel as tight as other FPS’. I just find it funny that people defend Battlefield to the death but Call of Duty is the worst game ever made. I see all these team military FPS’ to be Counter-Strike with pretty graphics. But these team military games need each other. If there were only one, it would become stagnate and dull. That’s something that fanboy(girls?)’s don’t seem to get.
Look at all the games that didn’t have competition in there genre, they became stagnate and dead, unable to support themselves. This is not just in games. We don’t want just Wal-Mart or Gamestop to be the only vendors in town. We have Amazon and Newegg (plz name some other online store I only use Amazon lol) for Internet shopping. The more people we have doing basically the same thing the better both of them will try to be the best at that one thing (NAPA vs. Autozone).
Let’s take World of Warcraft for example. I am happy that millions of people find the game fun. It’s not that WOW was the most innovative game ever that made it popular, it was that Blizzard did so many little things right that people could over look its faults. Its not really what WOW did for Blizzard that’s important, it’s what WOW did for the MMO genre that the key. Look at how many companies are bringing out MMO just this year that bring something different to the genre. We have The Secret World, Guild Wars 2, World of Darkness just to name a few. I do believe that WOW is in its twilight years since it’s down to 10 million users (2011 had 12 million at there height). I don’t play WOW but I do believe it did a lot more for its genre than people give it credit for. Maybe the same can be said for COD. Would Battlefield’s graphics look as good as they did if they weren’t trying to take COD’s place?
Omg Cariannis, your arguments are just SO bad. You CLEARLY have not invested much time at all in FPSs besides maybe Counter-Strike. I haven’t played Counter-Strike or Halo so I can’t tell you why they’re different. “But I have played COD and BF there is about a dimes worth of difference between them.” A dime’s worth? You obviously just haven’t played both of them for that long. Either that, or as previously stated, you have an IQ of 79, because you’d have to be almost retarded to not notice the major differences between two games. “Wouldn’t all this stuff make COD harder? Somebody gets on a killing spree and gets a bunch of perks is harder to take down then someone who didn’t right? Knowing where the maps and what’s overpowered and where would make the game more strategic not less. Those things seem to point to COD being the harder game not BF.” Lol, these sentences are just idiotic. Somebody else gets on a killing spree? Well guess what? YOU CAN TOO. WHO KNEW? Sure the perks might make CoD more strategic in a way, but BF has every bit as much strategy. In fact, it has more. You have to plan where you are going to go, how you’re going to get there, watch for land and air vehicles as well as enemy infantry, figure out the best place to spawn, what class and loadout you should use, what specialization (the BF equivalent of perks) you should use, and what squad to be in, among other things. So don’t tell me that CoD is more strategic or more difficult, especially when you have little game time with both.
My kill/death ratios in Black Ops and MW3 are above 1.5, but in BF it’s barely 1.4, which strongly suggests that BF is harder.
“You also bring up Child of Eden, which is a Kinect game that doesn’t play anything like BF or COD since it an on rails music FPS that is not a good comparison.” I’m not the one who said that ALL FPSs are the same thing but minor tweaks, now am I?
“2002 Battlefield 1942
2003 Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
2003 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2005 Battlefield 2
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
2006 Battlefield 2142
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2011 Battlefield 3″
Lol you failed at making a list of BF games. BF 1942: The Road to Rome and BF 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII were both expansion packs for BF 1942. BF2: Special Forces, BF2: Euro Forces, and BF2: Armored Fury are all expansion packs for BF2. BF 2142: Northern Strike was an expansion pack for BF 1942. Also, BF 1943 was a full game, however, it was a lot smaller in content. Only 3 infantry maps and 1 aerial map for multiplayer, and no singe-player, so I’d call it half a game. It’s actually more like a tenth of a game. So the list should look like this:
2002 Battlefield 1942
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2005 Battlefield 2
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2142
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2011 Battlefield 3
Much better. I eagerly await your response.
There’s an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation (season 5 episode 13) were the Enterprise encounters a group of humans that have for generations using eugenics to build a perfect society. Then this high gravitational core fragment decides to make a very close pass to there planet. Problem is this planet with its perfectly crafted system of selected breeding doesn’t have the technology to move said fragment. The answer for there salvation is found in the visor of a blind man, blind embryos are eliminated before injection. With their perfect eugenics program these people couldn’t solve a problem that an imperfect human had because of his handicap. The point to this is that necessity is the mother of invention. These companies survive on money, that is there necessity, and that well be there innovation (most companies do not understand this word).
I might have forgotten to mention that I’m a big Star Trek fan and I have been for the last couple days in a TNG marathon. As I type this I’m on season 7 watching Data stab Troi in a turboleft.
“Either that, or as previously stated, you have an IQ of 79” going after my IQ again? I must have hit a nerve. You mad bro?
“Somebody else gets on a killing spree? Well guess what? YOU CAN TOO. WHO KNEW?”
I don’t remember saying you couldn’t. I do remember setting up a hypothetical situation in which someone managed to gain an upper hand by getting these perks. This seems to be a viable strategy for winning the game.
“Sure the perks might make CoD more strategic in a way, but BF has every bit as much strategy. In fact, it has more. You have to plan where you are going to go, how you’re going to get there, watch for land and air vehicles as well as enemy infantry, figure out the best place to spawn, what class and loadout you should use, what specialization (the BF equivalent of perks) you should use, and what squad to be in, among other things.”
Doesn’t COD have all of these things but the vehicles? Don’t players have to know where to go and where not to stand to make it in COD? “Sure the perks might make CoD more strategic in a way” so they both have perks, so its just a mater of a persons preferred playing methods that decide which is more strategic. Like deciding to make a pylon on the seventh miner instead of the eighth.
“So don’t tell me that CoD is more strategic or more difficult, especially when you have little game time with both.”
I don’t remember it saying it was. Just saying that hypothetically speaking they don’t seem to have any difference in skill or ability to strategize in game. I do admit to using “those things seem to point to COD being the harder game not BF” as what is called a faint technique. A light jab if you will. But it seemed to work perfectly on you with this gem “My kill/death ratios in Black Ops and MW3 are above 1.5, but in BF it’s barely 1.4, which strongly suggests that BF is harder.” Yes that is some hard scientific data there…
“I’m not the one who said that ALL FPSs are the same thing but minor tweaks, now am I?”
Did you see my response to ATG? Every RTS is basically the same. Each one just tweaks the system to play a little differently. Every genre is like this. The tweaks are the most important part. At there basic level every FPS’ controls the same from Halo to COD, there are just tweaks that appeal to fans more in both. This is not a bad thing. This is a very good thing for us “gamers” (has it been established that I am a gamer?). We need these games to compete against each other. Plus Child of Eden is played with motion controls whereas COD and BF are played with WSDA or dual thumbs setup that has become the norm.
About the list I don’t remember saying that they were full games. They all fell within the perimeters needed to be sold in store. That’s all I needed to consider them yearly products.
You are still avoiding the question. How in the name of William Shatner is COD easier than BF? Your 1.4 vs. 1.5 argument is not scientifically hard hitting enough for me. Maybe if you take you warp core offline and run a level 3 diagnostic on its subsystems?
Wow, I accidentally just deleted the tab in which I was replying to your comment, so I’m not going to retype it all. Plus, I’m getting tired of correcting all of your silly claims and hypothetical situations. Fact is, no two games are completely alike, and most games contrast to other games in more ways than minor tweaks. That is a cold, hard, undisputable fact. Just ask anyone who has played one game from two different franchises in the same genre.
By the way: “Plus Child of Eden is played with motion controls whereas COD and BF are played with WSDA or dual thumbs setup that has become the norm.” Child of Eden is actually available for both Xbox 360 and PS3 and is compatible with both Kinect and Move. The key word there is compatible, meaning Child of Eden can be played on controllers as well. Do your research.
Also: “About the list I don’t remember saying that they were full games. They all fell within the perimeters needed to be sold in store.” What store do you go to that sells DLC? To my knowledge, DLC is only sold in digital stores.
“Wow, I accidentally just deleted the tab in which I was replying to your comment, so I’m not going to retype it all. Plus, I’m getting tired of correcting all of your silly claims and hypothetical situations.”
Dog ate your homework…eer tab? I don’t see any corrections made in my hypothetical situations. Nor do I see an answer to my question.
“Fact is, no two games are completely alike, and most games contrast to other games in more ways than minor tweaks. That is a cold, hard, undisputable fact. Just ask anyone who has played one game from two different franchises in the same genre.”
Didn’t I say that the tweaks are the key? I also don’t remember saying anything about minor. But the tweaks are the most important part of what makes one game different from another.
Humans as a general rule are not very imaginative species. Dragons were depicted 300 years apart in China and Europe without any viable data to show cross culture exchange. It’s the same with games, holidays, books are any number of other areas. We humans are just not that creative. Every now and then somebody has a bright idea.
Video games start with a basic setup that puts them in any one of hundreds of genres. COD is a FPS. Hacken is a dungeon crawler. Diablo is an action RPG. Wing Commander is a space flight simulator. So on and so forth.
I have a saying that I’ve been using for the last few years. “You can put ten diehard RPG fans in a room together and come away with eleven opinions of what an RPG is.” There are so many RPG genres out there. Roguelike, openworld, turnbased and and on.
So no FPS’ have not changed nor have they innovated in the last decade. Truthfully what game has in there respected genre and went on to sell millions? Humans are comfortable in the similar. We have thousands of year’s worth of stories that end on the happy, sad or bittersweet. There is no original ending anymore, all are clichéd. Mass Effect 3 has the most clichéd ending. Sadly as a writer Hudson should know this, he just doesn’t seem to get it.
This isn’t something new, many authors have already remarked on ancient, old and modern story telling.
“All my best thoughts were stolen by the ancients. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson”
Another quote that is still relevant today. And can easily be linked to games.
”If you want to get rich from writing, write the sort of thing that’s read by persons who move their lips when they’re reading to themselves. ~Don Marquis”
“Child of Eden is actually available for both Xbox 360 and PS3 and is compatible with both Kinect and Move.” Yes they are, that’s my point. A genre of a game is chosen by its choice in game play not story. The genre of a game is a deciding factor with how the buyer will view said game. Child of Eden is an on rails shooter. Like Final Fantasy Tactics is a tactical RPG. Child of Eden is not in the same genre as COD/BF, unless COD/BF are both on rails shooters?
I only use digital stores, but thanks for not seeing my jab.
Still my question has not been answered. It leaves me to assume that you do not have an answer. That means I’ll have to answer the question: COD is no more or no less harder than BF. Both BF/COD are just as tactical as any other shooter out there and they are equal in skill/tactics needed to win.
“I don’t see any corrections made in my hypothetical situations. Nor do I see an answer to my question.” Not true, I have made corrections to your hypothetical situations, but you are too blinded by your own prejudice to see that. And I have been continually answering your question in all of my comments, but you keep coming up with excuses to try to make my answers false or irrelevant or moot. You’re just being difficult and you’re avoiding the fact that I’m right because you don’t want it to be true.
“I also don’t remember saying anything about minor.” Really? Then what’s this: “There are just minor game play tweaks…”? Hmm, bad memory.
“But the tweaks are the most important part of what makes one game different from another.” Do you even know a video game is made? It starts with an engine, and from there it’s built from the ground up. You’re acting like all FPSs (and every other genre) are made from a universal FPS template. That is completely untrue and you, as a gamer of some sort, should know that. Games are developed and published by different companies, so there is no way in hell they would all use the same template.
“There is no original ending anymore, all are clichéd.” Really? Every single one? Because you know and have experienced the ending of every single book, movie, video game, short story, etc? Impressive.
“Yes they are, that’s my point.” I don’t think you understood my point of quoting what you said about Child of Eden. You said it is a Kinect game that’s played using motion controls. I corrected you by saying that it is also a Move game and you can play it using controllers. But apparently you don’t want to acknowledge your foolish mistake.
“Child of Eden is not in the same genre as COD/BF, unless COD/BF are both on rails shooters?” Yes, both CoD and BF’s single-player campaigns as well as co-op are on rails shooters. You should know that if you’ve played them, which you claim to have.
“That means I’ll have to answer the question: COD is no more or no less harder than BF. Both BF/COD are just as tactical as any other shooter out there and they are equal in skill/tactics needed to win.” 1. You can’t say any of that unless you have invested a fair amount of time in them, which you obviously haven’t nor have you claimed to. I can’t say that FF is just as hard and fun to play as Tales because I haven’t played either nor have I ever played a JRPG, so how can I automatically state that they are the exact same thing but with “minor gameplay tweaks?” I can’t, nor can you or anybody else. Also, it confuses me as to why you think BF/CoD require the EXACT same amount of skill. Do you know how incredibly hard it would be for three different developers and two different publishers to make two different FPS franchises require the EXACT same amount of skill/tactics when they’re not trying to make it so? Because you’re saying that there isn’t even a sliver of difference in the amount of skill/tactics required to win, which is impossible for two different FPS franchises. Big talk from a person who has barely even played either franchise.
Alright, now let’s see how you make my all of my points moot through excuses and inexperience in FPSs.
Exactly. No response. I’ll take your silence as a surrender of sorts and an acceptance of what I have said.
@jwalka, I completely agree with your first two paragraphs. CoD is too easy and rewarding– a bad kind of rewarding (killstreaks, deathstreaks, pointstreaks, perk-earning). The reason so many little kids play it is because it’s so damn easy and accessible, not much of a learning curve.
As for your last two paragraphs, CoD doesn’t really kill innovation. Maybe to some extent, but not a whole lot.
Completely agree Tay. This game looks dumb to me but that’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it, and by extension, everyone else is also allowed to like what they like for the reasons they like it. It’s hilarious many people think their opinion is The Only Truth.
I think the story COULD be interesting enough to play but Geesh… Those graphics just look terrible and dated
Borderlands 2 and Far Cry 3 is all I need this fall for my FPS. And I’ll probably keep playing BF3 bc ‘end game’ dlc will probably come out the same time as this. Graphics do look horrible. I saw this on my tv last night during the NBA playoffs and I was thinking surely this isnt BOP2. But it was…
BOOOOOOO! Treyarch is a FAIL always has been always will be! I never bought a Treyarch game because they ALWAYS have s***** graphics idk why some people are barely just noticing that now idiots just on CoDs nutts for zombies, noobs and that zombies ruined the name CoD thats why I will not be buying anymore. And also fuck Battlefield EA should stick to sports games ha.
The only reason that you don’t buy Treyarch games is because of their graphics? Graphics that are also shared by Infinity Ward’s games?
First off: When did Call of Duty become Terminator?
Secondly: If they took this idea, improved game play. Allowed you to carry more than two weapons at a time, gave you a health meter, and removed all chest-high walls for the cover-based shooting then they will have made a great game.
In short: Take away realism=make a good game.
Also, people stop complaining about graphics. Graphics don’t make a game, not in the slightest. All they do is give you something pretty to look at while you play.
Graphics could be absolute crap but if it’s a fun game you’re still gonna play it.
Wow, did I just read correctly? COD is what kids now-a-days consider games with “realism?” WOW… And apparently, there’s “too much” of it… *shakes head*
First off I’m 26, secondly maybe realism isn’t the correct word, but it doesn’t change the fact that the removal of health bars, addition of regenerating health and cover based action practically ruined the FPS genre, least in my opinion. Think about Doom, hard as hell, no regenerating health, and the main character runs as fast as a freight train without having to stop for air.
And it was fun.
Damn, 26 is old now? *cries* lol. Just kidding… ugh… Anyway, I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Are you saying health bars or regenerating health is realistic, because neither is… At all…
The game is gonna be sweet! The graphics look fine. Looks like a bit of a “Terminator” theme… would have preferred a more tradition COD theme, but “Terminator” movies were awesome so I can live with it.
Most importantly… ZOMBIES! With that said, the game will be worth every penny!
1 last thing… before this comment thread becomes more of a rant between people… please respect people’s opinion. State yours and not belittle someone else’s.
For those that will… enjoy the game!
They should make a seperate Zombies game aside from Call of Duty, besides going through SP, Zombies is the only the I play on COD
That being said, yea the graphics are not the best. but who cares, I didn’t play Mario 64 because of the amazing graphucs it had
Another Battlefield 2142 made not by Dice X.x…..
Why all the COD hate? Just take the game for what it is. Activision never claimed it brought a whole new level of realism to the fps genre, so who cares if they take short cuts? ITS A GAME!
Graphics dont make a better game, Killzone looks great! But i find it boring. BF3 is gorgeous, but it often gets boring. Halo is just as simple as COD, COD is actually more complex than Halo! In Halo, you cant even aim down the sights for christ sakes! COD is no different. To be honest, i Prefer they keep their 60 fps, keeps the game smooth. Easy to use controls and gameplay, more accessible to beginners. Everybody wins!
“Oh. But COD kills innovation” you say! Other games try to copy COD! MAYBE THAT MEANS OTHER DEVELOPERS NEED TO INNOVATE! Im not a die hard COD fan, im a gamer. If you hate COD and think it should die out, change, etc then you need to realize you are in the minority.
Im not a fan of Activision, but what company isnt money hungry? To be honest, i dont see anything wrong with milking it for every penny! To my next point!
VALUE IS DETERMINED BY AN INDIVIDUAL! If someone wants to spend $60 on COD, let them! They enjoy it, so where’s the harm?
Trying to convince everyone the game is bad and bla bla bla is just stupid and you kids/adults/gamers and straight up f*cking cry babies make me sick! Nobody’s a sheep for playing COD because they like it, they’re a sheep if they let YOU convince them otherwise!
Play YOUR game and stop name calling others and coming up with dumb excuses to hate COD.
I enjoyed the setting of the first BLOPS. I thought the sequel would focus on Mason in the 70s and 80s and the future stuff would be left for IW since MW3 ended that particular storyline.
Seems weird to have a Cold War set in the 2020s when you see LA getting blown up and everyone is using drones and whatnot.
Alex looks like he got the s*** beaten out of him