OXCGN’s Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Review (Single Player)

OXCGN’s Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 Review (Single Player)

Is the story sacrificed on the multiplayer altar? 

by Kent Sobey

© 2012 Kent Sobey

Love it or hate it, the fact is that there’s never been a more successful franchise in the history of gaming. Some people might disagree, but Call of Duty has gone from strength to strength – especially when you look at the number of copies sold and the size of the multiplayer community.

Like it or not, Call of Duty is probably going to be around for a while yet.

Fortunately for me, I love it, and have done since the first release of Call of Duty so I expect a lot more from each new release to keep me hooked.

Black Ops 2 may be the sequel to 2010’s Black Ops, but release-wise, it is following Modern Warfare 3.

Since this is a single player review only, I will say that following Modern Warfare 3 will not be easy because it was fantastic.

Black Ops 2 review here

Call of Duty: The Inevitable Consequence of ‘Progress’

Call of Duty: The Inevitable Consequence of ‘Progress’

How multiplayer purity was lost…and can be found

by David Hilton

© 2012 David Hilton

Poor Call of Duty.

I really do feel sorry for the franchise sometimes.  It is held up as the example for everything that is wrong in gaming right now.

While laziness of design leading to more of a ‘interactive blockbuster movie’ experience and a multiplayer that is accused of rinsing and repeating may be valid criticisms, it cannot be denied that the game has become a juggernaut in gaming, with so many gamers who wouldn’t normally play games joining in the fun, particularly the multiplayer.

It is a victim of success and massive sales.  Who would seriously be silly enough to change too much of a thing that is working?  Where is the incentive?  Build it and people will buy.

In multiplayer the Call of Duty franchise found the key to gamers’ wallets: from its great beginnings it progressed, was imitated to death, and then slowed innovation, because the consequence of progress and success was a lack of need to progress and change.

But innocence of another age was lost.  Something pure has gone missing, replaced by a cleverly addictive system of perks and customisation.

It may, however, not be lost forever, and it would be easy to restore the old while keeping the new.

What was lost from Call of Duty here

E3 2012: Timed Exclusives: Outdated strategy?

E3 2012: Timed Exclusives: Outdated strategy?

Does being first really matter?

by Arthur Kotsopoulos

©2012 Arthur Kotsopoulos

Microsoft announced during its media briefing that Black Ops 2, Resident Evil 6, and Tomb Raider would see its DLC on the XBOX 360 in a timed exclusive deal that follows suit the same way that Modern Warfare 3 and GTA IV before them did.

It begs the question: does having timed exclusive DLC really sways the consumer into purchasing the product that has the DLC first?

Does this business strategy really push sales of said game on the platform, or the platform itself?

Timed Exclusives, as waste? Go here

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2: Willing to do what others cannot?

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2

Treyarch ‘willing to do what others cannot’?

by exterminat

©2012 Nicholas Laborde

I’m not a new bandwagon critic of the Call of Duty franchise.

I can recall my utter confidence in 2007, stating how Call of Duty 4 would inevitably fail due to the fact that not a single mainstream modern warfare title had been released up to that point (not counting Battlefield 2 or GRAW), and moreso since it was coming from a World War Two-based franchise.

Of course, I was aptly proven wrong.

I’ve been steadily losing interest in the franchise with each title following 4, but Black Ops 2‘s trailer has done the unthinkable: it’s got my attention, well and truly.

And if a Doubting Thomas such as myself can be lassoed back in, what does this mean on a wider scale, considering sales for Modern Warfare 3 were already very impressive?

Black Ops 2 this way

%d bloggers like this: