Call of Duty: Black Ops

OK - correction on my part. The Soyuz-2 here was more likely to be the never-launched Soyuz-2A, a three-man craft later retrofitted to serve as a possible rescue vehicle for Komarov.

So... pretty fucking horrific either way.

Escalation on 360 May 3.

In related news, we now have a celebrity version of Left 4 Dead in the game.

In unrelated news, I would honestly pay $60 for a full game of this. But only if Activision isn't involved.

edited 26th Apr '11 1:46:58 PM by Torquey

New to this thread,and I must say I love this games story. I sure do wish there was more than an excuse plot for zombies. I see potential in that mode...

IIRC, in the Baikonur mission, you CAN see a rocket launch off in the distance. It's when you steal Russian uniforms, the two Russians are watching the launch.

Does anybody else love the new Water park map in Black Ops 3? I love it!

Just multiplayer and zombies in IV... er IIII.

While III's campaign was horrid, this smells fishy. Reminds me of the rumor that the speculated Modern Warfare 2 Remastered wouldn't have multiplayer.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of it being Black Ops?

I mean, just call it Call of Duty: Multiplayer.

So from the logo it's looking like 4 is going to be futuristic again?

I'm a huge fan of cyberpunk but....well, playing cyberpunk and being military industrial complex allied soldiers is kind of like playing a Western and being the evil train baron.

Livestream is up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N65eA0A7I2c

"no traditional campaign, we're weaving narrative through each of the modes"

Yeah, no. I'm gonna pass. At least we'll always have BLOPS II.

"... Treyarch has never shied away from introducing something new to Call of Duty and breaking convention..."

"We set the bar high, we challenge our assumptions and we take nothing for granted, and we rethink everything..."

Oh my god, what a load of unadulterated bullshit. Call of Duty is the single most formulaic, unoriginal franchise in the Modern gaming industry landscape. And the sad thing is, it doesn't have to be! Activision has so much goddamn money that they could afford to experiment a little, but they don't. That might risk their cash-cow. No, instead it's far more convenient to just keep farming out the same crap year-in year-out. And somehow, after nearly a decade of doing this, they're jumping on the bandwagon of Battle Royale and calling it innovation? Are you fucking joking!?

"...introducing you to twisted stories and unforgettable characters..."

More garbage. The writing in Call of Duty has never been good, and it doesn't have a single character who could be called good with the possible exception of Ethan from IW. If the people who are responsible for making these games actually wanted to create a genuine story with a myth arc spanning multiple games that has actual themes and good characters that aren't perfunctory techno-thriller cardboard cutouts, they absolutely could, but they don't and judging by the fact that Blops 4 isn't even going to have a campaign they're not interested in doing so.

Successive iterations in a gaming franchise are supposed to push the boundaries of what came before. Developers take the success of their previous game and leverage what they learned in making it to create a version of it that has improved core mechanics, adds interesting new gameplay features and drives the story forward in new directions. That's how it's supposed to work. But, that has not happened here. Activision has taken their success not as an opportunity to turn out something new and different that might build on their success but instead have chosen to rest on their laurels.

How much have Call of Duty's basic mechanics changed since Modern Warfare? And how many of those changes aren't an instance of simply chasing whatever trend has gripped the industry, from Titanfall's wall-running and enhanced mobility features to Overwatch's hero-shooter ability system? And now this Battle Royale nonsense, to prove that the well of creativity has been bone-dry for all this time. Take all the recent Call of Duty games, file the names off and show gameplay of them to someone who's never heard of the series. Then ask them to number them in the order they released. I promise you they won't be able to do it. They might not even be able to tell the footage is from different games.

So few franchises reach a position of prominence in the industry as the Call of Duty franchise. To have this level of success and do so little with it isn't just a missed opportunity, it's a travesty.

edited 17th May '18 12:32:41 PM by Gault

I just got an e-mail from Blizzard saying that Blops-4 is coming to Battle.net.

I have questions.

Angry Joe's take. Get ready for penny-pinching. You just know this thing is gonna be loaded with microtransactions.

@Endless: Activision and Blizzard are still together, so it's not THAT surprising.

I’m not paying $60 for a multiplayer only game.

So the fail that was Titanfall? They didn't have a traditional campaign either in the first one. They learned from their mistakes in the second.

Oh how have they fallen, now Call of Duty is actively TRYING to be the laughingstock of modern gaming they are known as.

Yeah, that was a big thing with Titanfall 2, which got a far more positive critical reception.

I wish we were getting another Titanfall instead of this.

Man brand loyalty is strong in this franchise.

I never understood why buy the new game if its exactly like the previous game with nothing unchanged aside from prettier graphics.

...This is odd. Especially from Treyarch, of all the studios.

I would've understood if Sledgehammer or Infinity Ward got stuck with this sort of plan (and notice how I said stuck, not chose), but Treyarch is generally regarded as the one Co D creator who not only has a solid story track record but also gives everybody a generous piece of the pie. BLOPS III arguably gave the most modes and play options out of any title in the franchise so far for both singleplayer and multiplayer modes, yet this one has chosen to take the same setting BLOPS III did... and only spruce things up with more multiplayer-only modes?

I don't think Treyarch had a choice in the matter. That, or their staff are working on an even bigger project behind the scenes, and this is just something to keep Activision (and by extent the public) sated until they're ready to reveal some brand new franchise.

When the "no campaign" first leaked I remember the reports saying Treyarch had made a big story but Activision didn't like it/claimed it was "too confusing" or something, and made them scrap it to force this shit.

So if that's true, same shit that happened with Destiny, but worse.

What could Treyarch possibly have written that would be deemed "too confusing" for their audience?