FPS - Follows Alex Mason and his son David across two timelines as they battle against the vengeful antagonist Raul Menendez, who seeks to incite global conflict through cyber warfare.

PROS:

++ Player agency. Call of Duty has always been a very linear experience. Players never really have much of a choice. But in Black Ops 2, Treyarch gives the player a little bit more freedom than they are accustomed to. It starts off with the ability to set custom loadouts before every mission. You can choose whatever weapon you want, and also attachments, secondary, perks, and throwables. This seems minor, but I still appreciated its inclusion. But more notably, the player is given some freedom to alter the narrative of the story. There are choices to be made within the campaign that will change the outcome of certain scenes and more importantly, how the story ends. Even the optional Strike Force missions affect the campaign. All of this makes the campaign a little bit more replayable than past campaigns.

++ Future setting. The game follows two timelines: one during the Cold War setting, and the other in 2025 with a futuristic setting. The futuristic setting is what shone in my opinion. Being set in the future allowed Treyarch to add a bunch of new weapons (for example: a gun that can shoot through walls), gadgets (drones, CLAWS. etc.) and enemies (drones, cloaked enemies, etc.). To me, it was a breath of fresh air and I happily welcome it.

++ Fluid gameplay. By far, the smoothest and most fun COD when it comes to moment-to-moment gameplay (at this point in the series). Movement felt fast. Dolphin diving makes a return. Aiming felt snappy and satisfying. Guns were great to use. Time to kill is fast. And unlike past Call of Duties, I didn't spend a lot of time hiding behind cover waiting for my health to recover and found myself playing much more aggressively.

++ Soundtrack & voice acting.

++ Attempts to innovate. Although not all their new ideas were a hit for me, I still appreciate Treyarch's open-mindedness and willingness to try new things.

CONS:

-- Freezing issue. On PS3, there is a weird bug in which the game would freeze on start-up if the player is logged in to PSN. You have to be signed out for the game to properly load. It's an odd and annoying bug that ultimately prevented me from trying any of the multiplayer aspects. Signing in will make the game freeze even after the game has already loaded.

-- Narative. I was torn about this game's narrative. It was ambitious in its approach and premise, but it personally didn't resonate with me. It's a shame since the antagonist (Raul Menendez) is one of the more compelling antagonists in COD that you could even sympathize with, but he felt undercooked. It was nice to see Alex Mason, Woods, and Hudson return, but none of the new characters were all that interesting (David Mason, Harper, Salazar, etc.). The story had some solid moments (death of Raul's sister, death of Alex Mason, etc.), but as a whole, I wasn't too moved by the narrative and wasn't really hyped when the story came to a close.

-- Strike Force Missions. I appreciate Treyarch's effort and willingness to incorporate a new style of gameplay into the formula, and I think the idea behind these missions were solid! Controlling units and having the option to control any one unit in real-time. But playing them as they were meant to be played (like an RTS) was too sluggish. It took too long to issue commands and each unit was too fragile and ineffective unless the player was personally controlling it.

-- Zombies. Just like the Strike Force missions, I appreciate Treyarch trying something new when it came to zombies. Tranzit feels completely different from past zombie maps and in the first few runs, I admit that there was a great sense of discovery and adventure. But the more I played it, the more I got tired of this map's mechanics (the bus, the fog, the dwellers in the fog, building the wonder weapon). And in general, it just lacked that addicting factor of Kino. But if you don't like Tranzit, there's an option to play traditional Zombies in three locations within Tranzit (Bus Depot, Town, Farm), but none of them by themselves are all that great as stand-alone maps. However, I do praise two things: the ability to play Zombies on easy, and the new Grief mode. Although I never played Grief Zombies, it sounds like it would have been a great, chaotic alternative mode to traditional zombies.

Misc.

Didn't get to try the Multiplayer since it's dead. Can't comment on how it innovates (e.g. Pick 10 system, league matches, etc.)

Players this game only once, and tired of the missions, some missions don't even feel like engaging like dancing and infiltrating.

lack the story impact in the middle of the entire game, the dynamic storyline is a good concept but the implementation is bad, if only we can see the option to change our decision later, to play with a different decision. instead of manually saving and playing the entire game. or searching youtube for all alternative story endings. this is not an open-world game, so don't try this in an fps game.

graphics are good, but not much better than first black ops, but run worse in the same hardware.

the story is ok, involving the previous characters, but the villain character is ok till mid-game, then it went worse. you guys need to make villains fearful or impactful to be rememberable.

the hero characters lost the charm and concern they had In the first game. enjoyed the starting missions, but the weapons are crap.

some missions don't even know why the characters are fighting and breaching, just kill anyone you see?.

well, it was fun playing this game, but won't even remember this game after a couple of other games and will forget eventually.

why is it that hard to make good missions and storylines like you guys did in blacks ops 1, modern warfare 1, the world at war, world war 2?

get your storyline and art department hikes and higher-good employees for these.

a game is not just weapons and graphics, I have Fortnite and apex for that, but a story game is supposed to be storytelling, and engaging.

even multiplayer games are only fun with friends, so make new games that are fun to play and worth buying, not just for the sake of money.

this was probably a rant, but I don't think any of the calls of duty people will ready this. Have a good day.

(Disclaimer: This is only a review about the design and history of Nuketown)

THE HISTORY OF NUKE TOWNS

The map Nuketown was introduced in the first "Call of Duty: Black Ops" game. The map is set on real events. Nuke towns really existed. They had different names like: Doom Towns, Fake Towns, Dummy Towns or Nuclear testing town. Real nuclear bombs were tested there. They were specifically built for this purpose only and located far away from any population. The objective was to improve civil defence by learning more about the bomb's impact and how it affects various materials and objects.

In the film "Indiana Jones 4" you can get a good look at such a town.

THE FUTURE OF THE PAST

The Nuketown map in the second Black Ops game took this style into an interesting direction. Now the map is called "Nuketown 2025". But I do not think that it is set in the year 2025.

I think it is only representing the year 2025 and how it might look from a 1960/1980 point of view. This art style is called retrofuturism. If you do not know retrofuturism, then think of it as old science fiction. Science fiction has been around for over 100 years. But when we, in our present time, look back at how they had imagined how our future might look like, it becomes very clear that most of it does not represent our current state of living. To differentiate the old and the new sci-fi, the term retrofuturism was invented. A very good example is the science fiction film "Back to the Future Part II" and how it had imagined the year 2015.

This is the reason why I believe that "Nuketown 2025" is not actually set in the 2025s. Instead, it probably plays around the year 1970 and the nuclear bomb is being tested in a town representing the civilization of the future.

But there is more to it. The "Nuketown 2025" map has a specific combination of retrofuturistic elements:

• Googie architecture: A wing shaped design that is used on most buildings and signs. The bright colours from this style are also seen on non-architectural elements.
• Streamline Moderne: An aerodynamic design that is easy to spot on vehicles and on some buildings that have rounded edges.
• Mid-century modern (architecture): A simple and clean design that is clearly visible on the orange house and on some other not accessible buildings on the map.
• Mid-century modern (furniture): Simple shaped and fast producible furniture that is affordable for most households.

There is another game out there that uses similar retrofuturistic elements. This game is "Fallout 4", especially at the beginning of the game. I remember playing it and spending many minutes just admiring the furniture. I have been a big fan of the retrofuturistic style for many years now, so this comes with no wonder.

LAST WORDS

Here comes a little side fact: I do not like to play shooters much, especially ego shooters. Yes, I have played a variety of them in the past. But most of them I only play with friends. Playing a game with a friend can enormously increase the fun and experience. "Call of Duty: Black Ops II" is one of those games.

Thank you for reading my review. 🧡

Ricci

What became of the Call of Duty franchise? As I played Black Ops II, the last game in the last console generation, I couldn’t help but think of the arc this gargantuan series had over the course of the Xbox 360’s lifespan. Call of Duty II brought real war campaigns to consoles, which the franchise did with reverence and honor for those who died in the actual wars. I remember in Call of Duty II, there was a certain amount of fear I felt for my character, that real people actually went through these horrors, and how not being careful could easily end in your death. Early on, Call of Duty was about putting the player in these situations, showing the intensity and the dark recesses of war, without reveling in them. The games were fun because the stories that were being told were fascinating and the controls were solid, not because the series was enjoying the actual experience of war.

Even at first when the series jumped into modern combat, with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the franchise still played with the uncertainty of potential war in a way that felt more shocked by the possibilities than any sense of enjoying the terrors they were creating. When Modern Warfare 2 asked the player to consider engaging in a terrorist attack, the idea of going along with the actions of terrorist groups was unsettling and not exactly an enjoyable experience.

As I’ve played through these Call of Duty games that were released on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, I kept thinking about another franchise put out by Activision and Treyarch, which became a yearly occurrence until the series burned out, moving too far away from what it originally was, only to push for stranger, wilder and more insane ideas: Tony Hawk Pro Skater. Working through the Call of Duty games, I can’t help but think that Call of Duty is doing the same thing.

Almost from the beginning of Black Ops II, the game seems to find joy in the blind killing of people. The very first level puts the player in a wide field, full of characters to mow down. The leader that sets up this level is explained to be a maniac, yet we’re supposed to follow his orders and just shoot. It doesn’t really matter that it’s hard to distinguish people from your side or from the other side. Pull the trigger and go. For often than not - and this is an issue I’ve had with the last few Call of Duty games I’ve played - the correct person you’re supposed to shoot is the non-white person in the level.

At first, I thought maybe I was being a bit too sensitive about this, about how the game wants me to find the murder and enjoy the murdering. But then came a level that started off promising, then became ridiculous.

About halfway through, there’s a level called “Karma,” in which the characters go to a floating resort paradise that completely changes up the type of environment we’ve seen so far, as well as allows the player to utilize new gadgets and be relatively stealthy, compared to what we’ve seen before. I was actually impressed with how much care the game was taking into doing something different that still felt like Call of Duty. Then, the level becomes a terrorist attack. Innocents are murdered by the enemy, people are mowed down on a dance floor, and for the only time the game does this, the action slows down to allow the player to shoot the terrorist, all set to a dubstep beat. The game clearly wants this to be an exciting, memorable level - and it is, up until this point - but the game squanders it with poor taste and awful execution.

I know it might sound silly to complain about the bloodshed in a war game, but my complaints come when the game primarily isn’t in a war zone setting, when the game is having far too much fun with the murder and extreme killing. One level, set before a tragic event that explains the villains motives, is preceded by giving this character a machete and letting him chop his enemies to pieces. Another puts the player in the shoes of a character you’ve never played as before, only as a way to make a life-or-death decision that never has any major consequences, other than the illusion of choice. Characters blatantly murder other characters after they’ve given up or are in custody. I could feel the game desperately wanting me to cheer as the brains of the bad guy splatter all over me.

But even stranger, and maybe the biggest sin of this game overall, is how Black Ops II truly has no interest in my participation whatsoever. Most of the time, the game wants me to handle the mundane moments, while the bigger narrative moments are handled by sequences out of my control. I often felt like the game also gave me very little idea of what I was supposed to be doing, who I was supposed to be attacking and where I was supposed to be going.

In one particularly frustrating level, the ending asks me to protect an injured soldier, stop every once in a while, shoot the oncoming enemies, then keep moving. Yet near the final stretch of this, as I stopped to shoot the enemies, I would be shot by a cavalcade of bullets from an unknown attacker. After a few times continuing this pattern, I hid and tried to shoot this mysterious shooter, yet even from cover, I would get taken down easily. It turns out the game didn’t want me to stop and protect this soldier anymore, it wanted me to keep going to the level’s end, but never let me know that. Instead of giving me more information that would help at the end of this mission, the game decided to continuously kill me without any explanation until I put together the game’s intention myself.

Black Ops II had at least one moment in each level that either irritated me with its narrative that tried to admit that “war is hell,” while also clearly enjoying the opportunity to shoot as many faceless enemies as possible, or frustrated me with a lack of clear direction and understanding as to what my mission actually was.

For a while, I considered that the story wasn’t that great because understandably, maybe the series had started to pivot into caring more about the multiplayer aspects of this game. Yet, you don’t hire David S. Goyer to write your campaign when you’re just going through the motions. The going back-and-forth from the past to the future is convoluted and often confusing, flashing to moments we haven’t seen yet, which gives us no understanding as to why these moments matter. This game also seems to assume that I remember the original Black Ops quite well and won’t need any reminder as to who the returning characters are. I can’t imagine this game making sense entirely to anyone that hasn’t already played this game before, and played the previous game recently.

I’ve seen this series getting progressively worse, and while I’ve enjoyed most of the earlier games in this franchise, the last few have been a chore to get through. As of right now I’ve played eight games in Call of Duty and it seems that there’s no real reason for me to play any of the current gen games, as I haven’t exactly heard glowing things about those either.

At the end of every Call of Duty, especially in the last few, I ask myself, “Do I really want to continue with this franchise? Is there any reason to keep playing this franchise that is so clearly deteriorating in quality?” I very well may play one of the current gen versions, just to see if there’s any leap in quality, but this is the first time that I’ve truly felt zero interest in continuing this franchise. It was fun while it lasted, but the best days are behind this franchise.

Black Ops II brought a fresh twist to the franchise with its branching campaign narrative, set across both Cold War and futuristic timelines. Up until this title came out, the Treyarch developer focused on older periods of time for it's settings, such as WWII for example, this was the first futuristic COD entry they decided to go for. Even though it was their first attempt, I consider this a very good futuristic shooter.

The story introduced player choice and multiple endings, a first for the series, adding replay value, which was a first for the franchise and definitely a standout, even though this is was already very common on gaming in general. Multiplayer refined the "Pick 10" loadout system, allowing for deeper customization, while fan-favorite modes like Zombies returned with expanded features. Visually solid for 2012 and well-optimized on PC, the game delivered fast-paced action, tight shooting mechanics, and a robust online experience. While the campaign's story could be over-the-top at times, its ambition was commendable.

The multiplayer from this game was definitely the most fun MP out of all the COD games up until that point, I can't say for sure if any subsequent entries managed to surpass it since I stopped playing them, but at least for me, this was the MP that I had the most fun playing. Not just because it was good, but also because of the new progression systems, which pushed you to play more and more until you unlocked and experimented with everything. Overall, it's one of the more innovative entries in the series and a fan favorite to this day, including myself, I consider this the second best COD game, first one being the first Black Ops entry.

I was kind of done with the Call of Duty series but, because Call of Duty: Black Ops was such a pleasant surprise back then, I played this one as well.

Right of the bat, Call of Duty: Black Ops II is a wild ride. Instead of focusing on some historical events or scenarios like the previous games, it is all over the place. Some action in 1986 Afghanistan, invading Panama, Cyberattacks in 2021, Chinese Cold war in 2025, it is one crazy mess to say the least.

You start in the final years of the Cold War as Alex Mason, the main, brainwashed, protagonist from the first Black Ops Game. You learn that during your little mission on Cuba, a new villain is in town, namely Menendez, who was responsible for torturing and killing your old squad buddies. You share this intel with the CIA and a strike against Menendez is ordered. A mission in Afghanistan is ordered and you meet up with Tian Zhao, who helps you find Colonel Lev Kravchenko, the guy that knows who in the CIA is providing Menendez with his intel.

Menendez fakes his own death after learning that the CIA is on his heels, and as time flies into the modern age, he eventually returns and uses the power of the 21th century to unleash drones and military satellites onto the United States. Meanwhile, a new Cold War with China in 2025 is going on, mainly via Cyber-attacks and secret assassinations.

After some weird and epic combat in the year 2025, which includes jetpacks, mobile computer powered shields, semi-space laser guns, mech suits, and fighting in floating cities, you track down Menendez in Haiti where you capture his ass and can decide his fate. Depending on what you choose, a different ending plays.

The addition of branched storylines is nice, and introduces new perspectives and endings for the game. If you screw up a choice in one of the strike Missions, or let a certain character die, it does not return and you may need to start your campaign over. I have to give it to them, that is some innovative stuff right there. And then, there is the “dancing” ending which is hilarious but unnecessary at the same time.

In terms of graphics, it looks like they changed it up a bit. Although it is still the same engine, if I am not mistaken, somehow it looks much nicer and more polished. The new futuristic lighting effects and lasers also made an impression on me.

Because of the whole 2025 theme, new and improved sound effects are also a nice bonus and satisfied my ears.

Combat wise, it is smooth as ever, and with the new jump, fly and glide mechanics, it feels like you have some more control over the situation and can approach some battles from new angles.

The zombie mode is also back, stronger than ever. With each release of this mode, more story and depth is put into it, keeping it fun to play.

I cannot believe I am saying this, but I actually enjoyed Call of Duty: Black Ops II. I thought I was done with the series, but like the first Black Ops game, this one surprised me. It is no masterpiece or something, but the most fun I had since the previous game.

Overall, a good experience with (finally) some innovation.

Definitely recommend this one.

Sorry I haven't been logging games for awhile. life is going so I was very busy. was still playing games in mean time, though.

This is actually the 5th COD game I've played so far, and to be truly honest, I feel like the COD games are more suited to people who want to feel emotional while holding a gun. They want to feel friendship, characters, and that's not the type of FPS that I enjoy.

I have tried so hard to embrace the COD concept but it doesn't click in the slightest. I played the stories campaigns, COD 4 was the only one to be of somewhat quality aside from the first entries as I will count the first entries separately. the rest are very all over the place for me. I wasn't really invested, the pacing felt like you're doing everything all at once, it doesn't really help you much, even with the cutscenes, it feels like there are so many things that this game is not explaining or giving.

The gameplay was another thing. again, I'm going to leave the first entries on their own completely separate. I don't like the feeling of the game. the weight of the guns, how you moved, it felt like you're controlling a robot that's not responding to what you wanna do most of the times. I'm a guy who enjoys Arena Shooter, and FPS of the late 90s, early 2000s style. so this one was very annoying to play. people call it realism, but I don't enjoy it. I play a game to enjoy, and unfortunately, this didn't do it for me.

The multiplayer was a very high concern for these games. some folks on Twitter and other forums directed me to some private COD servers that maintained the old school feeling, and it was fun for the most part. I enjoyed the screaming when some got jump scared or "jump killed" in these events. I happened to me a few times. I did enjoy the MP overall, but the gameplay just still rubs me the wrong way.

There are games that have zombies mode, including this one, and I didn't really find much appeal for it. maybe it's one of those "You had to be there" type of situations, but I felt like they are wasting too much time.

I'm probably the first Gen Z male who doesn't like "modern" COD games. they're something for folks who likes emotional military testosterone bonding of course, but they're only good as it can only get. In my opinion, it was a lucky chance that landed on COD 4. I think the series fans love these old school games as I assume the new ones are very much "modern" compared to the 2010s. the popularity of the game probably stem from Fomo instead of actually being a great game, but I'm not these games are bad. They're just not for me. I won't be playing the entire series. I will only touch on Advance warfare next to see what it is like and then will move on. It's not worth the 200+ GB download nor paying for the rest of the series.