Black ops 2 Multiplayer Reveal

[Fr0dders]

of course every FPS doesn't have to be about raw twitch gaming.

Thats what games like Quake Live and Counter Strike are for.

To suggest all shooters have to fit into that niche is retarded. There is plenty of room for shooters to be accessible and fun to all, without being solely dedicated to twitch and ultra skills.

Hence why COD is the best selling gaming franchise in history.

Whats even more retarded is to suggest that nobody likes perks, kill streaks, skins and attachments. If they didn't COD wouldn't be the multi million dollar franchise it is !!!

 

[Kamwah]

BW -> SC2

- graphics update
- easier control (no 12 unit limit, autoclumping etc)
- bnet 0.2 (actually worse than 1.0)
- few new/changed units but many remain the same
- new maps

The equivalent in CoD to new units is new guns, perks, attachments, maps and killstreaks, all of which will be present in Blops 2 (and in greater proportion that in SC2). Blops 2 obviously also brings new maps.

The interface and UI will be improved from the previous game, unlike the downgrade which occured in SC2.

The graphics will also be updated. Obviously not on the same scale as the move from BW to SC2 but bear in mind there were 12 years between those games and only 1 year since the last CoD (2 since Blops 1), plus the consoles are still the same hardware so that's fair enough.

Tournaments and team practice can be done on LAN (because CoD actually supports it unlike, oh yeah, SC2). P2P is good enough for the casuals.

I'm not dissing on starcraft here, i love that game (no matter how much i rage at it) all i'm trying to point out is the stupidity in most people's criticisms of the CoD franchise when they are happy to lap up similar stuff in other franchises. They don't hate CoD cos it's bad they hate CoD because it's CoD.

It's equivalent in principle to racism and other bigotry though obviously trivial in nature.

You're totally wrong. I still play CoD2/4 competitively a few times a month, have a few organized 5v5s on Promod/PAM with my team and have the best time. MW2 was alright but that's because I played it on console.
The others are terrible.

@MrLol - Only kids and casuals like kill streaks and perks. They ruin the game, make it imbalanced as **** and have no skill involved.

Give me CoD2 anyday with none of that **** where it's just about pure skill. O wait, kids don't like to have skill and just cry "OMFG You HAXXZORZ"

 

[Fr0dders]

I'm not neither and yet i enjoy the perks and kill streak aspect of COD.

My first introduction to online gaming was with CS way back in the beta 5 days, and wasted many, many hundreds of hours gaming competitively in Enemy Down / Clanbase leagues etc..

You're just going to have to face up to the fact that your preconceptions as to what people do or don't like are wrong.

 

[Kamwah]

I'm not neither and yet i enjoy the perks and kill streak aspect of COD.

My first introduction to online gaming was with CS way back in the beta 5 days, and wasted many, many hundreds of hours gaming competitively in Enemy Down / Clanbase leagues etc..

You're just going to have to face up to the fact that your preconceptions as to what people do or don't like are wrong.

You're just going to have to face up to the majority who like it are teenagers and casuals that have no idea what a skill-based game is.

Whatever tho, doesn't matter to me if they want to keep buying the same **** on a plate.

Btw, if you're not a kid or a casual then what are you? A Pro? Semi-Pro?

 

[Moothead2]

You're just going to have to face up to the majority who like it are teenagers and casuals that have no idea what a skill-based game is.

Whatever tho, doesn't matter to me if they want to keep buying the same **** on a plate.

What? Gaming was never intended to be a way of showing your 'skill'. A game is there to have fun and if the millions upon millions of people who by it find CoD fun, then it's a good game as it achieves what a game is supposed to.

You sound like a complete and utter elitist who waves his e-wang around to make himself feel superior.

 

[Kamwah]

What? Gaming was never intended to be a way of showing your 'skill'. A game is there to have fun and if the millions upon millions of people who by it find CoD fun, then it's a good game as it achieves what a game is supposed to.

You sound like a complete and utter elitist who waves his e-wang around to make himself feel superior.

I never once said a game wasn't for fun and never even said CoD wasn't fun.

CoD2/4 would never have been as popular as they are if they didn't have the support for the competitive side of gaming which you cannot deny follows a lot of the most-played games.

Yes, i'm an elitist who throws around my e-wang because I have a different opinion from yourself.

It saddens me that you find Activision releasing a new map pack disguised as a whole new game every year is 'fun'. They could make all the changes they do everygame easily, they're still on the same engine.


Btw you won't ever understand my PoV Moothead, you're just a casual and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[da_mic_1530]

When I look at CoD now, and think back to how good it used to be on CoD vanilla 1.4 on the PC it's depressing.

I'd love CoD1 to be remade just with updated gfx, skill with bolt action rifles rather than stupid perks.

 

[Fr0dders]

CoD2/4 would never have been as popular as they are if they didn't have the support for the competitive side of gaming which you cannot deny follows a lot of the most-played games.

Thing is, had you read the full details on Black Ops II, you'd realise just how much it differs from any COD before.

David vonderhaar went to the MLG, and listened to what people had to say. Black Ops II has skill based match making, meaning that if you are a badass, you will be matched with other badass players to give you a serious competition. If you play one of these matches, they are ranked, so everything is recorded and used to determine your skill and bracket (there are 7 different skill brackets you can be placed in, from iron all the way up to Pro)

They focus is on two game types - 4v4 and 6 v 6

The competitive mode have perks disabled by default, with all the items unlocked to make the game balanced and fair for all. The score streaks are disabled, and with the rules set to ones that MLG / pro players will be used to.

They have an inbuilt spectator mode, that anybody can join, and you can stream your gameplay onto the internet out of the box on console or PC. No video capture cards, no PVRs or recording software etc.. just turn it on in the options. Plus, you can use that same spectator mode to go back and watch your own matches. The spectator mode can be customized as well, to tailor exactly how much info is show to the spectator / commentator.

They've also enabled customization of the UI, so the pro players can remove pretty much all the visual prompts for ammo etc.. to leave their screen uncluttered.

Another new feature to the game is the whole multi team aspect. You can have 4 v 4 v 4 team DM, or 2 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 2 or 2v2 or any combination you want.

They've confirmed the PC version will be properly tailered to the PC, including the ability for dedicated ranked servers, just like in COD2.

This isn't just another re-hash.

 

[Kamwah]

Thing is, had you read the full details on Black Ops II, you'd realise just how much it differs from any COD before.

David vonderhaar went to the MLG, and listened to what people had to say. Black Ops II has skill based match making, meaning that if you are a badass, you will be matched with other badass players to give you a serious competition. If you play one of these matches, they are ranked, so everything is recorded and used to determine your skill and bracket (there are 7 different skill brackets you can be placed in, from iron all the way up to Pro)

They focus is on two game types - 4v4 and 6 v 6

The competitive mode have perks disabled by default, with all the items unlocked to make the game balanced and fair for all. The score streaks are disabled, and with the rules set to ones that MLG / pro players will be used to.

The biggest problem with this is that the current CoDs have an easy way to play competitively on console but no dedicated servers. You have the problem in the competitive scene atm where players are using this to their advantage by forcefully disconnecting the other team or doing things which cause them to lag.

They have an inbuilt spectator mode, that anybody can join, and you can stream your gameplay onto the internet out of the box on console or PC. No video capture cards, no PVRs or recording software etc.. just turn it on in the options. Plus, you can use that same spectator mode to go back and watch your own matches. The spectator mode can be customized as well, to tailor exactly how much info is show to the spectator / commentator.

They've also enabled customization of the UI, so the pro players can remove pretty much all the visual prompts for ammo etc.. to leave their screen uncluttered.

Another new feature to the game is the whole multi team aspect. You can have 4 v 4 v 4 team DM, or 2 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 2 or 2v2 or any combination you want.

I like that, I've always wondered why there aren't any good games with multiple teams.

They've confirmed the PC version will be properly tailered to the PC, including the ability for dedicated ranked servers, just like in COD2.

This isn't just another re-hash.

It was promised that MW3 wasn't just going to be a re-hash and it basically was.

A lot of the competition on PC is still with CoD4 and I think it'll have to be a really good game to bring it back to PC as it's mainly a console game at MLG these days.

 

[SheepBeast]

If you can't see how stupid comparing an RTS and an FPS is then anybody's wisdom is lost on you. Also SC2 didn't just add units, it took away units also in the name of balance.

Blops 2 is also removing guns although this seems an odd thing for you to bring up. I'm not comparing them directly I'm comparing the amount of new content over and above what their predecessors had, the genre of the game is irrelevant.

An FPS is about raw twitch, reactions, and gun control. Anything added to that in terms of kill-streaks, perks, and attached grenade launchers detracts from the game-play and skill. When I play a recent CoD game it's all about who strategically uses their kill-streaks at the right time to get 8 kills with a chopper gunner or something. It's boring and skill-less the AK shoots like a re-skinned M4, there's not enough difference between guns, they all shoot straight down the sight.

What a retarded thing to say. Equivalently "an RTS is about raw strategic decision making you should strip out all the extra such as resource gathering" etc etc. RTS and FPS are both very broad genres and contain games with a wide variety of focii. If you want a game with no perks, killstreaks etc then don't buy CoD. You shouldn't be saying "CoD should do this, CoD should do that" just to fit with exactly what you want. There are other games available. It would be like a CoD fan saying that CS should have deathstreaks, it should have perks etc. Imagine the reception that'd get... rightly so because it's a retarded statement.

Back in CoD2 days each gun had waaay more character, they felt and handled completely differently. Also the maps are terrible these days.

The much better comparison to make is bloat-ware that nobody likes on mobile phones and such, nobody likes bloat-ware. Perks, kill-streaks, skins, attachments and the like are all just bloat-ware covering over the poor FPS underneath.

I appreciate there's no arguing with MW3 fans, and you guys seem to enjoy it. Let's all agree to disagree and leave you guys to enjoy your game.

Some of the maps are bad but not all, and the same statement applies to most if not all games (SC2 is the only other game I play regularly online and it definitely applies to that). Blops 1 maps were in general extremely good, MW3 maps are a mixed bag, with only two maps I'd actually describe as bad. Bear in mind this is out of the maps available at release, I haven't bought any of the DLC so I can't comment on the quality of those maps.

Fair enough I will . To clarify I hate activision as much as the next guy and I'm not defending their money grabbing antics, but the gameplay and quality of the CoD games has been consistently very good IMO and it irritates me when people are so critical of it. (I understand for people that play the PC version a lot of it is justified however)

e: this guy sums it up pretty well

of course every FPS doesn't have to be about raw twitch gaming.

Thats what games like Quake Live and Counter Strike are for.

To suggest all shooters have to fit into that niche is retarded. There is plenty of room for shooters to be accessible and fun to all, without being solely dedicated to twitch and ultra skills.

 

[SheepBeast]

The biggest problem with this is that the current CoDs have an easy way to play competitively on console but no dedicated servers. You have the problem in the competitive scene atm where players are using this to their advantage by forcefully disconnecting the other team or doing things which cause them to lag.

I agree with this, the lack of dedicated servers on console is one of my two biggest gripes with the franchise (the other being the yearly release schedule). They always say "but dedicated servers would cost too much".

They have over 20million players and basically infinite cash..... what a weak excuse.

 

[Jase]

Is there going to be a Hardened Edition or something like that available like previous games? I don't see any for pre-order yet.

 

[Fr0dders]

It was promised that MW3 wasn't just going to be a re-hash and it basically was.

A lot of the competition on PC is still with CoD4 and I think it'll have to be a really good game to bring it back to PC as it's mainly a console game at MLG these days.

I know what you mean

But MW3 was a bit of a farce. There was a massive exodus from Infinity Ward and they were in no fit state to make the game.To make MW3 they needed 3 developers - infinity ward, Sledgehammer games and Raven Software. Infinity Ward had massive issues getting the game out. Robert Bowling was at various events promising stuff, such as removing Last Stand, no game ending Kill Streaks, dedicated servers etc.. that they simply couldn't or wouldn't deliver.

They made so many claims that they went back on, he earned the nickname Robert Trolling

Black Ops II will be different, they at least have developers who are capable of balancing stuff.Hence why all of the perks that affected gun handling have gone. No steady aim, no sleight of hand etc.. All the things that affect a weapon are now actual weapon attachments, making it easier for Treyarch to control whats going on, and less deviations that can lead to overpowered weapons (akimbo FMG9s anybody ?)

Plus, they built a stats reporting system straight into the game. which records the score per minute of every player using every item, and reports back. If a particular item is recording a much higher score per minute than was expected, they will know about it.

Plus, they've made things more tweakable. By removing the steady aim perk altogether, they can adjust how much bonus is added to weapon's hipfire on a per weapon basis, as the player has to equip the laser pointer attachment to get the bonus. So from a coding point of view, it is very easy to predict the outcome of a change to the game, as you can specify which weapon gets how much of a bonus without worrying about how certain perks are going to affect it.

I agree with this, the lack of dedicated servers on console is one of my two biggest gripes with the franchise (the other being the yearly release schedule). They always say "but dedicated servers would cost too much".

They have over 20million players and basically infinite cash..... what a weak excuse.

You only have to look at whats happened with Battlefield 3's dedicated servers to realise its not the solution that people think it is. It would help, but it also creates new issues.

BF3 has australian and new zealand gamers crying out for dedicated servers, but with none in their specific region. Dedicated servers cost money to run, and EA offset that by copying the model that PC gamers have with dedicated servers - namely somebody rents them and is then given controls of that server. There are not huge vast expanses of EA run dedicated servers for BF3 for PC for example.

Turns out console gamers can't be trusted with running their own servers without ruining it for everybody....

 

[Kamwah]

Well I hope it really is different. If it is then maybe I can start attending MLGs and Dreamhacks again XD

 

[Gerard]

They made so many claims that they went back on, he earned the nickname Robert Trolling

It always amazed me that in one year he went from "community manager" (or should i say 360 community manager as he rarely ever bothered with ps3 or pc) to the director of MW3. Says it all how he could get elevated to that position so fast.

 

[Fr0dders]

Have a watch of these. They really do fill me with hope that they've made some serious changes for the better with this.

Yes it looks and plays the same, but it caters for every taste now and the game can be played the way you want to play it.

Want to be a casual and go pub stomping with AI killstreaks ? you can do that. Want proper 4v4 league play with no scorestreaks , perks etc.. and skill based match making with other pro players ? you can have that too.

It always amazed me that in one year he went from "community manager" (or should i say 360 community manager as he rarely ever bothered with ps3 or pc) to the director of MW3. Says it all how he could get elevated to that position so fast.

there was nobody else to be MW3 manager, they had a staff of barely double figures for MW3 apparently !

OcUK has quite a large base of COD regulars on consoles. Nearly all of them got fed up with MW3 and moved on the game was so poor. All signs are that treyarch have nailed Blops II

 

[m4rk84]

snip

New content does not necessarily mean quality content. SC2 went through a 6 month beta period with endless delicate changes all in the name of balance and game-play. Call of Duty adds whatever it thinks will sell at the cost of game-play and balance. The two design principles are worlds apart. Even these new changes they are advertising for competitive play are just 'selling points' they are mainly coming about because the fans have been a little more vocal after all the MW3 lies.

However I think you misunderstand me, my post was more a crack at those that say something along the lines of "MW3 has way more stuff then the old ones how can you say it isn't better" and sentiments along those lines. The point is for me everything that has been added since CoD 2 has been at the cost of the intricate balance underlying the game.

Also to those that say "BUT IT'S SOLD 5 ZILLION COPIES IT MUST BE GOOD", enjoy being the Farmville of the FPS genre.

 

[SheepBeast]

New content does not necessarily mean quality content. SC2 went through a 6 month beta period with endless delicate changes all in the name of balance and game-play. Call of Duty adds whatever it thinks will sell at the cost of game-play and balance. The two design principles are worlds apart. Even these new changes they are advertising for competitive play are just 'selling points' they are mainly coming about because the fans have been a little more vocal after all the MW3 lies.

However I think you misunderstand me, my post was more a crack at those that say something along the lines of "MW3 has way more stuff then the old ones how can you say it isn't better" and sentiments along those lines. The point is for me everything that has been added since CoD 2 has been at the cost of the intricate balance underlying the game.

Also to those that say "BUT IT'S SOLD 5 ZILLION COPIES IT MUST BE GOOD", enjoy being the Farmville of the FPS genre.

I completely agree with your second two paragraphs, but as for the 1st one - have you played SC2? I've played it a ****ton and have done since release, the last thing Blizzards balance tweaks can be described as is delicate.

There have been two huge changes in the past few months. One was necessary but they massively overnerfed. The 2nd change came at a time when the Terran vs Zerg matchup was dead even 50% winrate, and widely regarded as the most balanced and interesting matchup in the game. Nevertheless Blizzard in their infinite wisdom decided to buff the range of a vital zerg unit (queen) from 3 to 5 which completely ruined the matchup and it still hasn't recovered.

Why not 3 to 4 instead, and see how it goes? Why buff at all when the matchup was so perfectly balanced? No-one knows. All we know is that Blizzard are ****tards, just as much so as Infinity Ward and definitely less so than Treyarch.

 

[Kamwah]

I completely agree with your second two paragraphs, but as for the 1st one - have you played SC2? I've played it a ****ton and have done since release, the last thing Blizzards balance tweaks can be described as is delicate.

There have been two huge changes in the past few months. One was necessary but they massively overnerfed. The 2nd change came at a time when the Terran vs Zerg matchup was dead even 50% winrate, and widely regarded as the most balanced and interesting matchup in the game. Nevertheless Blizzard in their infinite wisdom decided to buff the range of a vital zerg unit (queen) from 3 to 5 which completely ruined the matchup and it still hasn't recovered.

Why not 3 to 4 instead, and see how it goes? Why buff at all when the matchup was so perfectly balanced? No-one knows. All we know is that Blizzard are ****tards, just as much so as Infinity Ward and definitely less so than Treyarch.

Most companies balance like they're using a pen.

Blizzard balance like they're using a tank.

 

[m4rk84]

Regardless of how they balance or it's effectiveness at least they attempt to balance. I wonder how the balance team discussions went when infinity ward discussed the tactical nuke.