Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 - Your thoughts
  • Subject: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 - Your thoughts
Subject: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 - Your thoughts
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I want to play Blops 2, but I don't want to waste my money on something that could potentially become boring after a week of gameplay.

I'd like to discuss Black Ops 2 with the Flood and hopefully make a choice as to whether or not I should buy the game as a result.

Immediately I am questioning how repetitive the multiplayer gets. Just yesterday I spent an hour at a relative's house and thoroughly enjoyed playing several maps. I enjoy running around shooting people and zombies in different environments in video games, and I often got a shock from suddenly being killed.
It's the adrenaline rush of being in heavily attentive combat which makes me want to buy Blops 2.


How was the campaign?

How is the zombie mode this time round?

What are the weapons like?

Was it worth buying?


The ball is in your court.

  • 01.04.2013 12:25 AM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"

Its an expansion pack to black ops and the same game theyve made for the past 3 years except with new weapons/perks and maps.

  • 01.04.2013 12:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Steam - slamt4stic
Live - SLAMt4stic

Zombies is great. Grief is loads of fun.

Campaign is meh, played a few levels. One nice thing is you have a loadout for campaign now.

Typical range of CoD weapons.

I feel it was worth the $40 I paid for it.

  • 01.04.2013 12:26 AM PDT

Couldn't bring myself to buy it because I've been disappointed by the last two installments in the franchise. Figured I'd hate this one as well, and from what I've heard/seen, I would.

  • 01.04.2013 12:27 AM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

I thought the campaign was awesome. Treyarch managed to pull off what Bioware failed to do. Gamer choice most definitely effects the ending. Zombies is pretty fun, though not many changes since the last game. Tranzit is a ton of fun. The multiplayer feels about right, though the new weapons are cool.

  • 01.04.2013 12:29 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Raptorx7
Its an expansion pack to black ops and the same game theyve made for the past 3 years except with new weapons/perks and maps.
That's an answer I expected, and the copy-pasting idea is becoming more obvious as additional CoD games are made. But when you have enjoyed each of the games they've made for the past 3 years is such a reason valid to not purchase the next one?Posted by: chronicaddict420
Zombies is great. Grief is loads of fun.

Campaign is meh, played a few levels. One nice thing is you have a loadout for campaign now.

Typical range of CoD weapons.

I feel it was worth the $40 I paid for it.
A loadout for the campaign is a nice step forward to something better, even it if is a minor improvement. Thanks for the input.Posted by: Slothful Koala
Couldn't bring myself to buy it because I've been disappointed by the last two installments in the franchise. Figured I'd hate this one as well, and from what I've heard/seen, I would.
Thanks, it's all down to preference and I enjoyed the last 2 installments.

  • 01.04.2013 12:30 AM PDT

"There's a very fine line between not listening, and not caring. I'd like to think that I walk that line every day."

Campaign was good. One of the better ones, IMO. Not on league with Call of Duty 4's, though.

I think the weapons are fairly balanced. The maps are generally medium or smaller sized, so you'll see a lot of SMGs and sometimes shotguns (which annoy the hell out of me). Shotguns in and of themselves aren't overpowered but when used in skilled hands in conjunction with map size, they're sometimes merciless. Maybe I just don't like getting killed "easily".

Well, you're not going to see people going 30-0 with shotguns, most people who use them get 1:1 ratios or lower. But they're the close-range sniper rifles.

I really like the game.

I could write a lot more if you have more specific questions.

[Edited on 01.04.2013 12:31 AM PST]

  • 01.04.2013 12:30 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
I thought the campaign was awesome. Treyarch managed to pull off what Bioware failed to do. Gamer choice most definitely effects the ending. Zombies is pretty fun, though not many changes since the last game. Tranzit is a ton of fun. The multiplayer feels about right, though the new weapons are cool.
I didn't realize there was a method of choice with outcome in Blops 2, how prominent is this feature?

  • 01.04.2013 12:31 AM PDT

"Why concentrate on the negative when we can speak of the positive?"
My File Share
Try using the Search Bar next time.
Halo 2 was the best Halo game
A7x FoREVer!

Ah, so the OP knows the multiplayer is the exact same thing as he/she did not ask about it.

No, its not worth $60 if you own a CoD game from the previous 3 years.

  • 01.04.2013 12:31 AM PDT

Campaign= 8/10

Multiplayer= 7/10 (completely ruined Domination)

Zombies= 6/10 (SMALL maps)

Overall= 7/10, a HELL of an improvement over MW3.

  • 01.04.2013 12:31 AM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


Posted by: elite_gamer84
Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
I thought the campaign was awesome. Treyarch managed to pull off what Bioware failed to do. Gamer choice most definitely effects the ending. Zombies is pretty fun, though not many changes since the last game. Tranzit is a ton of fun. The multiplayer feels about right, though the new weapons are cool.
I didn't realize there was a method of choice with outcome in Blops 2, how prominent is this feature?
very.

Some of the more major decisions are hidden. Obviously I can't say where, as it would spoil it for you, but there are at least 4 points where your decisions decide the outcome of the story.

[Edited on 01.04.2013 12:33 AM PST]

  • 01.04.2013 12:32 AM PDT

The Campaign has it's ups and downs. I personally thought it was the worst one yet tho.

Zombies is alright but they changed a lot of things. I prefer the traditional original Black Ops zombies experience; random box on every map, perks on every map, pack-a-punch on every map (Yes, some individual survival maps are lacking those features).

Most of the weapons are good. None too "futuristic" feeling, other than one or two that are only in Campaign.

It was worth buying.

I think the Multiplayer is the best since CoD:WaW. Still WaW and CoD4's top it, but I like this one better than MW2, BO, and MW3s.

  • 01.04.2013 12:33 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BROWN HAWK
Campaign was good. One of the better ones, IMO. Not on league with Call of Duty 4's, though.

I think the weapons are fairly balanced. The maps are generally medium or smaller sized, so you'll see a lot of SMGs and sometimes shotguns (which annoy the hell out of me). Shotguns in and of themselves aren't overpowered but when used in skilled hands in conjunction with map size, they're sometimes merciless. Maybe I just don't like getting killed "easily".

Well, you're not going to see people going 30-0 with shotguns, most people who use them get 1:1 ratios or lower. But they're the close-range sniper rifles.

I really like the game.

I could write a lot more if you have more specific questions.
I did notice a dominance of close-quarters combat involving mainly SMGs or short-barreled assault rifles. That's possible something I can cope with as the SMG usually can cater for short and long range. The fact that it's not on league with CoD4 is a big burden, but is that due to CoD4 breaking open an undiscovered genre branch and setting a perfect example of innovation for the v-game industry?

As for questions;
1. Is the Elite membership invasive, as in does the game keep making you require it, or can you buy Blops 2 without ever having to buy Elite because you 'Don't have that DLC'?

I remember being kicked out of games due to not having certain maps, is this the case still or is there a non-Elite playlist?

2. How long have you roughly played Blops 2 for, so far? And how much longer do you expect to continue playing it until it becomes boring?

3. Is there any form of encouragement to party up with friends? I'm on the PC, so it's down to who I have as a friend on Steam, but does the game itself hint at forming a clan or simple group of friends?

4. Is the zombie mode on par with WaW and Blops 1?

  • 01.04.2013 12:37 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Noshotskill
Ah, so the OP knows the multiplayer is the exact same thing as he/she did not ask about it.

No, its not worth $60 if you own a CoD game from the previous 3 years.
I've played an hour's worth of the multiplayer. If I thoroughly enjoyed the previous CoD games, why is it not worth buying this one? Do you say such because I am literally paying for minor improvements and refurbished content?Posted by: Dark Tyrax
Campaign= 8/10

Multiplayer= 7/10 (completely ruined Domination)

Zombies= 6/10 (SMALL maps)

Overall= 7/10, a HELL of an improvement over MW3.
Thanks for the feedback, that's enough for me to buy it.Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
very.

Some of the more major decisions are hidden. Obviously I can't say where, as it would spoil it for you, but there are at least 4 points where your decisions decide the outcome of the story.
I understand, it's primitive but still gives the players a lead on where the campaign hoes. Hopefully future potential installments to the franchise will expand this feature.[quote]Posted by: FlapjacksNsyrup
The Campaign has it's ups and downs. I personally thought it was the worst one yet tho.

Zombies is alright but they changed a lot of things. I prefer the traditional original Black Ops zombies experience; random box on every map, perks on every map, pack-a-punch on every map (Yes, some individual survival maps are lacking those features). Worst one yet? Ouch, can you explain why? Have previous installments set too high a benchmark and then the developer has failed to meet or exceed it?

How has the zombies mode differed? Obviously without a random box on every map, I can see the alterations in survival times and map layout tactics getting repetitive sooner. Thanks for the info.

  • 01.04.2013 12:41 AM PDT

"There's a very fine line between not listening, and not caring. I'd like to think that I walk that line every day."

Posted by: elite_gamer84
Well, I dunno, CoD4 is just special like that, and whatever anyone says it definitely had flaws, and they were significant.
I think that we've yet to see another great leap in innovation, such as Modern Warfare was.

1) No idea. I'm not an Elite member, and while I only play Core TDM and Ground War, I've never had a problem. I don't think map packs have been released yet, though.

2) 4 days in-game time. I've had the game since late-November. I'll probably make it to at least 10 days. Maybe 20. That's kind of my average FPS multiplayer log.

3) Not really. I do alright and I only play solo. Having a team of good players is a great benefit to any game, BO2 no exception, but whether it's like BF3, which emphasizes squad play, no. You can definitely take it to that level, though, but i'd say it's not even necessarily unless you're against like 3 or 4 of me.

4) Can't say. I've never been a Zombie-afficionado. I've played maybe . . . a handful of Zombie games between all CoD titles.

[Edited on 01.04.2013 12:44 AM PST]

  • 01.04.2013 12:43 AM PDT


Posted by: elite_gamer84
Posted by: Noshotskill
Ah, so the OP knows the multiplayer is the exact same thing as he/she did not ask about it.

No, its not worth $60 if you own a CoD game from the previous 3 years.
I've played an hour's worth of the multiplayer. If I thoroughly enjoyed the previous CoD games, why is it not worth buying this one? Do you say such because I am literally paying for minor improvements and refurbished content?Posted by: Dark Tyrax
Campaign= 8/10

Multiplayer= 7/10 (completely ruined Domination)

Zombies= 6/10 (SMALL maps)

Overall= 7/10, a HELL of an improvement over MW3.
Thanks for the feedback, that's enough for me to buy it.Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
very.

Some of the more major decisions are hidden. Obviously I can't say where, as it would spoil it for you, but there are at least 4 points where your decisions decide the outcome of the story.
I understand, it's primitive but still gives the players a lead on where the campaign hoes. Hopefully future potential installments to the franchise will expand this feature.[quote]Posted by: FlapjacksNsyrup
The Campaign has it's ups and downs. I personally thought it was the worst one yet tho.

Zombies is alright but they changed a lot of things. I prefer the traditional original Black Ops zombies experience; random box on every map, perks on every map, pack-a-punch on every map (Yes, some individual survival maps are lacking those features). Worst one yet? Ouch, can you explain why? Have previous installments set too high a benchmark and then the developer has failed to meet or exceed it?

How has the zombies mode differed? Obviously without a random box on every map, I can see the alterations in survival times and map layout tactics getting repetitive sooner. Thanks for the info.

What you need to understand about Zombies is that while Treyarch succeeded in bringing variety to the game mode, it actually detracted from the fun of the original Zombies and the new additions seem gimmicky. Not only that, but as others have pointed out before, the maps are SMAAAALL. Like unbelievably small.

  • 01.04.2013 12:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BROWN HAWK
Posted by: elite_gamer84
Well, I dunno, CoD4 is just special like that, and whatever anyone says it definitely had flaws, and they were significant.
I think that we've yet to see another great leap in innovation, such as Modern Warfare was.

1) No idea. I'm not an Elite member, and while I only play Core TDM and Ground War, I've never had a problem. I don't think map packs have been released yet, though.

2) 4 days in-game time. I've had the game since late-November. I'll probably make it to at least 10 days. Maybe 20. That's kind of my average FPS multiplayer log.

3) Not really. I do alright and I only play solo. Having a team of good players is a great benefit to any game, BO2 no exception, but whether it's like BF3, which emphasizes squad play, no. You can definitely take it to that level, though, but i'd say it's not even necessarily unless you're against like 3 or 4 of me.

4) Can't say. I've never been a Zombie-afficionado. I've played maybe . . . a handful of Zombie games between all CoD titles.
Thanks for answering my questions, I've got a better idea of what I might be buying now, even if there are let downs.

With the more games I play, the more potential improvements I can see being added and the more let-downs I see. I kind of expect that from a franchise which is trying to repeat itself for money and pure success via numbers.Posted by: Dark Tyrax
What you need to understand about Zombies is that while Treyarch succeeded in bringing variety to the game mode, it actually detracted from the fun of the original Zombies and the new additions seem gimmicky. Not only that, but as others have pointed out before, the maps are SMAAAALL. Like unbelievably small.
One big factor in my enjoyment with the zombie mode is that maps like Shi no Numa were nicely large for extended survival times and such allowed for wide experimentation with survival methods.

Despite the large amount of information everyone has given me, I am still somewhat doubtful as to whether I will buy Blops 2. The price goes back up tomorrow after the Christmas sale, the gamble relies on whether or not the Elite feature with push me around to buy the DLC.

  • 01.04.2013 12:53 AM PDT

"Living to smile, and not to succeed; smiling to inspire happiness, not to give the illusion you are happy; creativity and music to inspire smiling, which in turn inspires happiness; being nice to be happy, not for being perceived a good person."

Not Black enough.

  • 01.04.2013 12:54 AM PDT


Posted by: elite_gamer84
How was the campaign?

How is the zombie mode this time round?

What are the weapons like?

Was it worth buying?


The ball is in your court.


1. Haven't beaten it, but I like it so far.

2. Terrible. Honestly hate it.

3. SMG's need to die.

4. Absolutely.

  • 01.04.2013 12:55 AM PDT

Lag compensation ruins the entire game for me.

I played MW2 and Black Ops 1 tonight and had far more fun. No lag comp, sure MW2 has annoying noob tubers and RPG idiots but no lag comp!

  • 01.04.2013 12:59 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: iTz Hermione
Lag compensation ruins the entire game for me.

sure MW2 has annoying noob tubers and RPG idiots but no lag comp!
What's this 'lag comp' you mentioned? I've never heard of it.

  • 01.04.2013 1:00 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: NAC Renegade
Posted by: elite_gamer84
How was the campaign?
How is the zombie mode this time round?
What are the weapons like?
Was it worth buying?

The ball is in your court.

1. Haven't beaten it, but I like it so far.
2. Terrible. Honestly hate it.
3. SMG's need to die.
4. Absolutely.
Despite answers 2 and 3 being negative, you still conclude that it's worth buying. Such is why I am unable to determine whether I should buy it or not. The balance is awfully difficult to perceive.Posted by: Mind Reaper 771
Not Black enough.
That's down to taste ;)

  • 01.04.2013 1:01 AM PDT

Posted by: elite_gamer84
Posted by: iTz Hermione
Lag compensation ruins the entire game for me.

sure MW2 has annoying noob tubers and RPG idiots but no lag comp!
What's this 'lag comp' you mentioned? I've never heard of it.


a quick search on google or youtube and you'll see plenty of it. But bascially a built in system that got out of hand in MW3 and sadly carried over to Black ops II.

Lag compensation is a system that tries to even out player's connections. The problem is if you have a good connection or pull host often you are screwed. The game purposefully delays you and makes players with bad connections not notice a thing is wrong.

For example Player A comes around a corner and shoots player B. But player A dies instead even though he pounded bullets into player B first. Player B only saw on his screen player A (you) just standing there like a moron and shoots you dead. Basically lag comp at it's finest. You were delayed in-game and get ripped off. The same when you pound bullets in a guy and die and the killcam shows him taking almost no damage.

That is the kind of BS I hated in MW3 and hoped to not see in Black Ops II. But it's back and far worse. Just pay a visit to the official MW3 forums and see their 500+ thread page of lag complaints to the devs who tried to fix it. Or go to the black ops II forums and see more lag comp issues as well. Even well know CoD players on youtube have their complaint videos about the game with lag comp.

  • 01.04.2013 1:08 AM PDT