Review
Played on: Xbox 360
Released: 2012
Released: 2012
It came then, as a huge disappointment, to learn that Black Ops 2 would be set in the future. So much, in fact, I decided to give the game a miss after seeing the E3 video at the Xbox press conference last year. Futuristic weapons, drones and the "unrealistic" setting just didn't intrigue me enough. Recently though, the game dropped in price and I decided to give it a spin. Turns out, I underestimated it, somewhat.
I ended up being pleasantly surprised.
To my positive surprise, Black Ops 2 follows very closely to the first game's characters and story. It shows Harry Mason as an old man, in a home in the close future, telling his son about black ops missions during the eighties. I love these flashbacks, as they're in a similar realistic vein as the first Black Ops. These missions are related to future events, in a massive terrorist war.
The game however, leaves the eighties after a couple of missions and stays in the future thereafter. Luckily, these missions are very good and aren't as far-fetched as I feared. They turn out to be very entertaining to play.
In between the main story missions, there are a few side missions scattered through the storyline. These focus on controlling a small army of soldiers, drones and robots, in a set area or map. Either you're defending or attacking multiple targets on a map, while enemy soldiers are making your life hard.
These side missions add a lot of new ideas to the franchise, and a very non-linear compared to the typical COD gameplay, as they let you freely traverse the map. You can at any time zoom out for an overhead view of the battlefield, order soldier and drones to attack or defend, and take control over any of them.
Multiplayer, where most of the COD players will be spending the time, is packed with even more unlocks and content than before. It helps keep you playing match after match, waiting for the next gun attachment to be unlocked or another ability to suit your play style. After so many, yearly releases, I feel the combination of all these are fairly well balanced. Some of the modern attachments to your gun are a little overpowered in my opinion, but they never feel totally unfair.
I like the large, detailed maps, they look fantastic. Treyarch have outdone themselves graphically, maybe it's the sharp lighting and bright colours that makes them look so good?! They're packed with small details and routes to get from one end to the other and are very balanced, with anything from close combat areas to open sniper friendly ones. The game opens up to cater for different play styles on each map.
While playing the multiplayer, which once again captures the addictive COD player in me, I wondered, why not use this gameplay in the singleplayer? It's like I'm playing the game in two different ways. To explain it better: I feel I explore the environments closer, and learn tactics in them, much more than the "run from A to B" style of the story campaign. I also find that the gunfights seem more intense and advanced, when your enemies are attacking from all different angles and hide around the environment.
They need to learn from how people play in multiplayer and how the maps are free to roam, then implement this in the singleplayer. The, aforementioned, side missions in BO2, kind of touch the essence of this, but could have been even closer to replicating this. Getting familiar with areas, makes the gun battles even more fun and tactical.
I enjoyed the main story in BO2, it sure isn't as well told or tense as BO1, and could have done with a better plot twist, but it works fine. The multiplayer, once again, proves that having smooth 60fps gameplay and controls really make the game feel much more responsive than the competition. It keeps you interested with unlocks and XP hunting, and sure is a formula almost overused in the franchise, but it always, somehow, pulls you back in.
Call of Duty delivers, once again, albeit with some overdone design choices compared to the more believable predecessor.
