When Modern Warfare first hit Xbox Live, the effect was monumental. It was one of the best online games we'd ever played, and seeing something of such high quality getting the right recognition was genuinely thrilling. Detractors argue that since then the series has become stagnant, but in many regards the biggest problems have been caused by skewed attempts to improve the formula by adding a bunch of cool new stuff.
Black Ops II nails Call of Duty multiplayer for the first time since 2007. The maps are fantastic, the guns are great, and the redesigned loadout system brings back the sense of clarity that has slowly been lost after years of incrementally piling on features.
The new 10-point loadout system bundles guns, perks, and equipment together - allowing you to specialise classes even further - and the greater variety of Pointstreak rewards makes defensive play even more viable. 800 points can earn you the foe-microwaving Guardian emplacement, which is fantastic for protecting objectives or forcing the enemy to approach from a different direction. Our favourite addition is the proximity-activated Shock Charge, a versatile tool that's great for setting traps, scouting danger ahead, or giving you a heads up that you're being followed.
The preset multiplayer loadouts are all great, and start to give you a good idea of the variety of ways you can choose to play. The 10-point loadout system allows for inventive and incredibly versatile builds, but hardcore fans will adore the extremes. You can choose to ditch a secondary weapon in favour of extra perks and gear, or even make a class that forgoes weapons entirely - maxing out everything else and hoping that you find a good gun in the field. It's a genuinely excellent system, although we'll admit to mild worry that the versatility leaves it open to abuse. Our Activision-hosted review session, playing against developers and other media, was well-balanced, but the millions of CoD players online will have ample opportunity to break it. Treyarch promises to remain vigilant - we'll see what the next few months bring.
Black Ops II offers some of the strongest map design in the series to date, with too many favourites to pick just one. The sprawling rocks and crashed plane in Turbine offer a great blend of sniping spots and opportunities to flank, while the frantic pace of Hijacked - a tiny level on a luxury yacht - is perfect for party games like One in the Chamber or the much-loved Gun Game.
Multi-team deathmatch isn't as much of a game-changer as Modern Warfare 3's excellent Kill Confirmed, but the overall set of modes feels comprehensive. The feature we're most excited about is the brand new League play mode. Giving everyone access to all the unlocks levels the playing field, and allows the game to accurately rate your average skill. Thanks to parent company Activision Blizzard, the league system for Black Ops II is a direct copy of the system used in Starcraft II. We've played enough of the latter to know that Blizzard's league system is the best in the world, and the impact it will have on Call of Duty shouldn't be underestimated.
48 comments so far...
bamozzy on 13 Nov '12 said:
Only an 8 and yet this game is SO MUCH better than MW3! Whilst I do think it is not perfect, it certainly is the best CoD game to date. Even if the Campaign isn't the best, all the other parts are greatly improved and I think the campaign has at least tried a different approach - it is no longer Linear although I still have to see how my decisions actually affect the story line and then compare that to my other playthroughs with alternative decisions.
As Treyarch seem to have got so much right - especially compared to previous CoD titles I struggle to see how this can be given such a low score. So many things that have annoyed us in the past have been fixed so how can this effectively be a worse game?
FishyGinger on 13 Nov '12 said:
I really don't think it deserves more than an 8, if even that, if the single player is poor and strikeforce is dire. Same with BF3 and MW3, the campaigns were rubbish and a complete afterthought so might as well have been left off. Although BF never really had a single player before and was just jammed in CoD from the very first one on pc was all about single player for me. Shame
Zombies mode sounds interesting but hardly worth the not-sure-why-it's-higher-than-everything-else asking price.
fracturedrich on 13 Nov '12 said:
i hope the league system works as well as starcraft 2 one because that definatly keeps me playing.
bamozzy on 13 Nov '12 said:
My main criticism of this score is down to consistency. Based on score alone then this game is worse than MW3 in general. However this is by far the best MP, Zombies has also been improved and the campaign has tried a whole new approah and format - it is no longer a linear walkthrough and at least has tried to make it re-playable.
As I said, the MP has been greatly improved. The emphasis has been shifted to Objective based play and NO Death Streaks! Just these 2 aspects alone have greatly improved the MP. However these are just 2 of the improvements and there are many. The only thing that disappoints (and this is such a minor criticism) is the score streak system. One of the things MW3 got right was the ability to assign Kill streaks to a class. that way you could change class to get different rewards mid way though. However in BO2 you are stuck with your score streaks until the pre-match lobby. You cannot always predict what score streaks you want/need as you do not know what Map/mode will be voted in - especially if the random vote wins. This means that if you have selected wrong for the map/game mode then you are stuck with them until after the match. Whilst this is not game breaking, it does feel like a bit of a step back.
Therefore based on Previous CoD games, this is definitely the best however the review scores do not reflect the improvements!
FishyGinger on 13 Nov '12 said:
If two games were made by one developer, 1 or two years apart and they were identical (I'm not saying these are) should they get the same score? I think it will naturally be marked down for being fairly similar regardless of how many minor changes they make (an article on them saying that different endings is amazingly new on CoD wound me up a bit, pretty sure games as far back and further back than snes games managed that one).
Either way from the sounds of it the story is a step back and the story is quite major part of it. If you enjoy it all though doesn't matter what reviews it gets so all is well.
Zinzan44 on 13 Nov '12 said:
Good lord OXM,
You didn’t give this dire game a 9 or a 10? Has Future publishing finally let you free of their vice like grip? Have they now allowed you to be somewhat of an independent reviewer free to make your own decisions, not influenced by the corporate board or corporate money. At last it seems you’ve emerged from Activisions deep pockets, I can scarcely believe it. Hell, you’ve been down in that dark abyss for a long time… Although, you may feel great now for giving an honest and accurate review (which is Your job) and I applaud you, I can’t help but feel that the OXM team will be upset since that “Personal” cheque you seemed to previously receive once a year following every over “Generous” call of duty review will no longer be there…
Welcome back to the world OXM, no doubt it’s changed since November 5, 2007… for the better or the worse, who am I to judge.
CunningSmile on 13 Nov '12 said:
Biggest problem is that everyone has been calling for the guys at OXM to judge CoD as they would any other game rather than rubber stamping 10/10 (not that I'm saying they do) but when they do everyone complains that the scores aren't consistent.
Of course they aren't. A review can vary massively depending on what the reviewer thinks of the franchise in question, what kind of mood they are in, what else has come out, how technology has changed and as they are only human I'm sure they can get caught up in hype as much as the rest of us.
Unless we expect them to rescore CoD 1 through whatever every year I think you may just have to live with taking each chapter in isolation.
And Zin? Shut up, you're just embarressing yourself.
Bezza89 on 13 Nov '12 said:
Don't bother yourself with the score, it's the review that matters - to me MP and zombies are good, story is not so they've scored the game as they see fit - if one aspect is better but another is worse you should judge accordingly regardless of another score. But what is the other score based on, a different person, so you can't expect consistency. I found it a helpful review.
KernowDevil23 on 13 Nov '12 said:
As with EVERY game review EVER, it's down to the taste of the reviewer. OXM said "the campaign isn't very good" but IGN wrote that the campaign was "the best yet".
At the end of the day, if you're a fan, you're going to buy it regardless of review scores so please stop moaning about it!!
Metalratex on 13 Nov '12 said:
Same score as Gamespot, but for different reasons. Here the campaign was the down point; there, zombies.
OXM ETboy on 13 Nov '12 said:
Thanks very much for your unsubstantiated accusation of bribery, Internet Insider #1234. If you could follow up with either (a) actual evidence, or (b) an apology of some sort, I'd be mightily pleased.
kronk10 on 13 Nov '12 said:
You sir are an epic anal wort
KernowDevil23 on 13 Nov '12 said:
Just to clarify Ed, am I okay to ban users for being tools?!
I can't believe some of the rubbish people post on here. Thankfully it's becoming more and more rare to see it though.
FishyGinger on 13 Nov '12 said:
As a mod you have ultimate power and you can make all kneel before Zod.
d4nx2y on 13 Nov '12 said:
Come on Far Cry!
EdDeRs1 on 13 Nov '12 said:
judging by your review of the single player it should only take a few patches to sort things, so for once it appears that my luck is in since im getting this at Christmas
OXM ETboy on 13 Nov '12 said:
Nah, don't worry. I've read a lot worse, and Zinzan's put together some worthwhile posts in the past.
KernowDevil23 on 13 Nov '12 said:
Fair enough Ed. I'll just have to wait for my next victim....
SadCheesecake on 13 Nov '12 said:
I didn't read the review, but y is this an 8!? This is finally a proper change in the CoD series
Zinzan44 on 13 Nov '12 said:
.
FishyGinger on 13 Nov '12 said:
God help us
OXM ETboy on 13 Nov '12 said:
So what you're basically saying is: we have a history of giving good games good scores? My God, the scandal. As for the differing lengths of reviews - most are produced for the magazine first and foremost, and magazines impose relatively strict word count restrictions. Call of Duty games get more of those words because Call of Duty games are incredibly popular. It's hardly rocket science.
As for the rest - posting a bunch of fast and loose, context-free summaries of reviews proves nothing, and no, I'm not going to try to address the precise thinking behind articles I didn't write. Opinions are opinions - by all means disagree with them, or point out flaws in the argument, but spare me your baseless theories as to the character of the writer.
Again, evidence of bribery or an apology.
fracturedrich on 13 Nov '12 said:
i would big the game up for a fat cheque no problem,but the line of people outside game standing in the rain tells me they dont need to bribe anyone.
ninjadan8988 on 13 Nov '12 said:
Um, having just read the review it appears that you have just assumed the article went Multiplayer = many postives, Single player just one flaw, whereas I read five or so different flaws within the single player section.
Also, as I believe someone else has stated before me to which I agree, as the years go on an technology improves of course a game isn't going to get roughly the same/better score if it isn't vastly different/improved. Just look at something like the Doom 3 Special Edition that has recently been re-released. The review of that is basically saying that it is pretty much the same as last time just with updated graphics. On your basis that means it should have had a better score than the review for the Orignal Xbox (which although I cant remember, I doubt it was as low as what the lastest edition got), despite it being considerally weaker than other games coming out. Think before you type.
Carpet Monkey on 14 Nov '12 said:
These comments have sent me into a spiral of depression....dear lord
FishyGinger on 14 Nov '12 said:
I've posted this elsewhere but it should cheer you up no end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJQVlVHsFF8
As for bribery, where did you get that giant purple dildo from then? Either you bought it of your own free will or were gifted it, i'll let you decide what's better
As for the reviews zinzan, I'm sure it wasn't the same reviewer, and one flaw doesn't mean 1 point off, different aspects have different weights. If two games both have one flaw, the first one being ai is a bit rubbish and the second being the game doesn't work at all, should they get the same score? Maybe perhaps they thought the games were good perchance?
If OXM want to bribe me for advertising them in my weekend town crier job though I wouldn't say no. A new tv would be nice.
severedize on 14 Nov '12 said:
No offence OXM but that review did not seem to have your usual wordy cleverness, seems like you played safe to me, or copied and pasted black ops 1 review,
Uncle dozens on 14 Nov '12 said:
Day 2 and server down already. Taking piss after making people shell out for game and season pass
DGR1980 on 14 Nov '12 said:
Making people?
Yes thats exactly how shopping works
Uncle dozens on 15 Nov '12 said:
I mean that people play COD for the online multi player. Why do they not expect the hammering the servers will receive. Surely that what beta testing is for not to mention that this is, I believe the 11th Call of duty game to be released.
I think that the game itself is excellent but it's bloody frustrating when, after working hard all day and getting the kids to bed, I can't relax with my new game because the servers are down on the second day of official release.
Considering the price of games and the latest craze of season passes it seems like developers are only interested in money rather than quality sometimes.
CunningSmile on 15 Nov '12 said:
Just out of interest how do you test for 5 million people using a server simultaniously? Unless you have the worlds largest payroll budget the only way I can think of is...release the game and hope for the best.
FishyGinger on 15 Nov '12 said:
You use advanced cloning techniques.
CunningSmile on 15 Nov '12 said:
The problem with that is once you've stability tested your game you're left with 5 million clones doing nothing. Next thing you know someone uses them in a galactic war and 30 somethings who still live in their parents basements never stop complaining that they would have done it better.
FishyGinger on 15 Nov '12 said:
Aha, so that's where you live!
They are useful for other things though. Such as the washing up, next years x factor contestants, target practice.
Uncle dozens on 17 Nov '12 said:
How do you test for so many people playing the same game? You are aware that this isn't the first call of duty game to feature multiplayer gaming aren't you?
CunningSmile on 18 Nov '12 said:
Really? That had completely escaped my notice, thanks for pointing that out to me for I have been on Mars, in a cave, with my fingers in my ears and humming loudly for the last decade.
It could be the first, it could be the 1 millionth (which is what it feels like) but it is still a different game from the others, with different programming and different bugs. Therefore it needs testing again, in the same way that any other online game doesn't get to say "well it worked for MW3 so I'm sure we'll be fine."
Also in case it had escaped your notice each CoD game outsells the one before it. You don't have to be a genius at maths to realise that therefore each game has more users than the one before it, ad more users equals more strain on the system.
KernowDevil23 on 18 Nov '12 said:
Oh stop it with your common sensical replies Cunning. You'll confuse the children......
FishyGinger on 19 Nov '12 said:
Fine, dismiss clones then. Suppose that's what george lucas should have done.
Bezza89 on 19 Nov '12 said:
I wish there was straining on the servers in CoD, but they don't have any - it's all P2P isn't it? But either way, you can't recreate the conditions for release prior to it due to even a beta not accruing enough of a sample of the people who would buy. It's like skyrim, 5 million people will play it and may 1% (50,000 is a lot) will complain that there's a bug unique to them therefore the game is buggy, why wasn't it tested, bethesda are shit. Reality check - wait a week or two.
pougalbear on 20 Nov '12 said:
I agree totally with the review. Where in the past the SP storyline was gripping and made you want to play through this time it feels like an after though bolt on from the MP. Something Battlefield has always been guilty of. I understand Treyarch were trying to make new grounds for the series but it seems to fail. Choose loadout prior to each mission at times makes them feel disjointed especially with the back and forth through timelines. As for Strike Farce missions they again seem like an after thought.
MP is where its at this year and they have nailed it. IMO anyway.
damienL on 22 Nov '12 said:
for once i rekon oxm have got it spot on with this score the campaign though im only half way through im not enjoying it no were near as much as other cods and the zombies is soooooo dull the first black opszombie mode was awsome and played it to death but the way they have gone about it this year is couldent be bothard yes the zombie mode a different touch but y not do that plusgive us maps just for survival as atm theres 3 maps which r almost all the same map plus transit which to be fair a little pointless.
where this does excell is MP which we all know thats the reason y we buy the game plays good and the revamp ov scorestreaks r a good change BUT i may be rong i have prestage once and thought there be extra guns etc as the big 1 for me theres guns on the campain that u get but U DO NOT GET ON MP i.e the gallio
so if n e 1 knows ny more on if u unlock more as u go on prestigeplzlet me know but all in all for a game
id give 8 out ov 10 also
FishyGinger on 22 Nov '12 said:
I seriously think I lost a great deal of IQ points reading that last post damien.
RetroDad on 22 Nov '12 said:
/\ /\
SidTheSloth on 22 Nov '12 said:
It was the "For once i reCkon" that got my eyes rolling, nothing like being damned with faint praise...
I'm not sure which is more offensive, the arrogance or the spelling...?
RetroDad on 23 Nov '12 said:
I'm especially fond of the solitary full stop after the word pointless!
fracturedrich on 24 Nov '12 said:
Does any one no if there is going to be another cod on the xbox ,or is it next gen.
BLOODBATH MARK on 26 Nov '12 said:
Too clean cut is the graphics for my liking.Boaring gameplay.Crap weopon reload time & whats with the respawning of your enemy right behind ya?? You kill em and the same person ya just killed sticks a sticky grenade to the back of ya head!!!! Overall my review of this game is crap......not happy.
nemo123 on 17 Dec '12 said:
this is an awesome game best cod ever!!!...........if anyone is interested ive just started a new clan lethal-vengance no entry requirements all welcome old or young good or bad playing mainly black ops 2 but will enlist for mw3 ops/challenges if theres enough demand just apply to join or message me gt: ham5ter of doom for an invite.