Cod Black Ops 2 Villain Trailer - General

[QUOTE=Anonymuzz;36717359]its a fast and brainless deathmatch shooter, you probably shouldn't have taken it seriously in the first place[/QUOTE] probably shouldn't have. it's the noob tubes that got me the most lmao BTW if anyone is wondering why I said mw2 was trash and then I said it was fun, it's because it was a fundamentally broken game and it took everyone about a month to realise this. you can see videos on youtube of sniper/noob tube quadra kills from spawn, tactical nukes in 30 seconds and all that jazz

If there anything that Cod Trailers get me it's hyped, they're flashy and cool looking but, other then that, its still CoD. Yes, that trailer was awesome, but I'm still not buying the game.

[QUOTE=fixture;36717210] [B]Black Ops was trash[/B] the games are recycled and boring, and people should quit buying them.[/QUOTE] You make it sound like it's fact when more people liked it then MW2 and MW3 and if people should quit buying them because they are recycled then people would of stopped buying them at CoD 2 since the MP has been the same since CoD 1 [QUOTE=Anonymuzz;36717282]mw2 was a fine game that seriously added to what cod4 had set on the table, people were just upset about the lack of dedicated servers and i really think it colored their perception of the game as a whole. there were a few notable balance issues but they never gave me problems, and most of them were patched quickly enough anyway though i wont deny that everything after mw2 was basically on the same vein as yearly sports games. i've still got decently high hopes for blops2 though, not enough to buy it but enough to keep an eye on it[/QUOTE] Oh god I remember that, people hated how there were no dedicated servers and it was $60 and after they put in tons of hours the bandwagon started. I don't people even remember any more how it actually started which is ridiculous in it's self. [QUOTE=Anonymuzz;36717359]its a fast and brainless deathmatch shooter, you probably shouldn't have taken it seriously in the first place[/QUOTE] oh god this is hilarious too, when people go "omg it's not realistic and it's over the top and it's too arcady and it's not tactical!!" it's like people don't know it's the same gameplay from MW1 and CoD 1 and that they don't know it's supposed to be like that. Hell most of the people who say that are part of the people who only bought ARMA for DayZ

in all honesty ALL of the modern cods brought new shit to the table, except mw3. blops made mp fun as shit and wasn't designed to be taken seriously, blops 2 looks the same

It still looks ugly.

mw2 was the best modern cod

[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;36720113]mw2 was the best modern cod[/QUOTE] It was the worst any CoD.

this trailer is all well and good when they say it's the most innovative one etc then you watch the E3 footage and it's the same shit really

I think I'm looking forward to the single player in this, but if the multiplayer is just like it always is, I think I'll pick it up on sale.

To be honest, COD games are ok. The single player is brainless, over the top nonsense, but it [I]is[/I] does have some spectacular moments, and the multipayer is fast paced and pretty solid. Whatever people say, the reason there is so much COD hate, the real reason, is the god-awful fanbase.

I'd play it

It looks really unrealistic. I mean, look at youtube in the trailer. You're gonna tell me they'll still have the same layout in 2025? Bullshit! Edit Oh goddamnit, it's been said on the first page.

[QUOTE=simkas;36720162]It was the worst any CoD.[/QUOTE] Someone didn't play MW3. Honestly if MW2 had dedicated servers and not-bullshit killstreaks it would be p good.

[QUOTE=fixture;36717210]what "looks to be" a decent game. I remember when the whole of FP was mega hyped for modern warfare 2 and it turned out like trash. Black Ops was trash. Modern Warfare 3 is trash. now the opinions are divided, about half of FP no longer buys CoD titles while the other half argues that they are worth it $60 a pop every single year. It's annoying for me to find posts on my facebook feed where my friends are talking about how great the next CoD is going to be, and how they drool all over the shoddy trailers. two or three weeks after release when I talk to them about the game at school, they've already dropped it and are complaining it's shit and frustrating, yet they still continue to buy them every single year. It's so dumb. I think I have every reason to complain about CoD, just like you have every reason to defend it if, in your opinion, it's actually a good game modern warfare 2 was fun at first, but towards the end it was one of the most rage inducing games I've ever played on the PC. every single CoD title looks to keep that same old shit on the basis that it sold so well. the games are recycled and boring, and people should quit buying them.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? Black Ops was almost as good as MW1, and MW2 was just weakened because of certain bugs and no dedicated servers. Everyone then made a snowballing bandwagon where they would add to the list just about anything they hated. The truth is that there are games that are even more recycled to hell and back and FP looks at them and throws their wallet at the clerk on the store. CoD releases ONE game that looks too much like the last, END OF THE WORLD, DIE COD DIE. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=fixture;36717314]trust me I thought MW2 was good for the time I played it. I put over 100 hours into that game and found it fun, but only when I began to take it seriously as opposed to casually was when the rage set in because of painkiller death streaks and what not. what I am complaining about is the fact that simply because MW2 sold so incredibly well, the new CoD's have brought absolutely nothing to the table and people should no longer be getting hyped over them like they are now[/QUOTE] The only game that really didn't bring nothing new to the table was MW3, yet, there are games that also bring absolutely nothing new and people here still shit money for them and then give the most retarded reason ever: "But this is fun and CoD isn't" Yes, and your opinion really matters more than anyone else right?

Until I see a new silo model, I'm not buying anything. [QUOTE=dass;36720989]What are you talking about? Black Ops was almost as good as MW1, and MW2 was just weakened because of certain bugs and no dedicated servers. Everyone then made a snowballing bandwagon where they would add to the list just about anything they hated. The truth is that there are games that are even more recycled to hell and back and FP looks at them and throws their wallet at the clerk on the store. CoD releases ONE game that looks too much like the last, END OF THE WORLD, DIE COD DIE. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] The only game that really didn't bring nothing new to the table was MW3, yet, there are games that also bring absolutely nothing new and people here still shit money for them and then give the most retarded reason ever: "But this is fun and CoD isn't" Yes, and your opinion really matters more than anyone else right?[/QUOTE] It's obvious you're a fan of Call Of Duty, but you have to admit they haven't brought anything new to the table since World at War. It's literally a copy and paste system, that I personally am getting tired of seeing. It's sad that games like Bioshock: Infinite, Dishonored, The Last of Us, Watch Dogs, and Splinter Cell Blacklist will probably not make as many sales as Black Ops 2, although they are [B]obviously[/B] better games.

It's going to be hard convincing people who aren't RPG fans but enjoy military-themed arcade shooters that some of those games are [QUOTE] [B]obviously[/B] better[/QUOTE] Not only do you not understand that those games are marketed to a narrow audience compared to CoD (particularly The Last Of Us, a PS3 exclusive), but also that the video game world isn't a black and white world of people buying CoD every year, people buying RPGs every year. There is going to be overlap. Do you know what happened after MW3 came out? Everyone I know said the game sucked shit and instead spent their free time playing Skyrim. CoD is a popular game because it's an easy, faced past, drop in, progression-linked, solidly made shooter that runs really well on fairly low end hardware. It's the one size fits all game. The best ~innovative story-heavy dialogue rich decision making first person RPG slash strategy hybrid~ game wouldn't outsell CoD 27 because of the demographics each game appeals to.

[QUOTE=usaokay;36718457]Mason gets killed by Raul. Calling it now.[/QUOTE] Mason is actually Raul. Calling it now.

[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;36709272]I see. You would have no complaints if it was called "Black Ops: Episode 1" instead of "Black Ops 2". I can see the difference now.[/QUOTE] The idea behind an episode is basically DLC that can be sold as a whole game - the development time should be shorter, the COST should be shorter, and the game will naturally be a smaller piece of a whole storyline. These games are sold at full price and are treated like a whole new sequel. Pull your head out of your ass and realize while there is a bias towards Valve here that's nothing short of stupid, you can't just go "WELL DURF SOMETHING VALVE DID" and expect that your argument is going to work.

[QUOTE=Hakita;36725695]Mason is actually Raul. Calling it now.[/QUOTE] Raul is fake and Mason hacked the drones, calling it now.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36726808]Raul is fake and Mason hacked the drones, calling it now.[/QUOTE] Drones are fake and Mason hacked Raul. Would call it now but I forgot the number.

Nice Call Of Duty 4 mod they made.

[QUOTE=Sharker;36708108]That's exactly what people said about mw2[/QUOTE] Before the announcement of no dedicated servers. Then everyone jumped on a hate bandwagon. Granted, the game turned out to be shit.

[QUOTE=Hakita;36725695]Mason is actually Raul. Calling it now.[/QUOTE] You know, I looked at him and thought the same. Either Mason or someone related to him.

I stopped playing and buying cod after Black ops, I understand this is adding in some rpg/rts elements or whatever and such but I'm just tired of it. I feel like it's still going to play similar, and the multiplayer will still be rage inducing. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I don't see why there's so much hype, again. Sure treyarch has arguable made the better cod games, but it's still just Cod.

[QUOTE=hornypinecone;36721696]Until I see a new silo model, I'm not buying anything. It's obvious you're a fan of Call Of Duty, but you have to admit they haven't brought anything new to the table since World at War. It's literally a copy and paste system, that I personally am getting tired of seeing. It's sad that games like Bioshock: Infinite, Dishonored, The Last of Us, Watch Dogs, and Splinter Cell Blacklist will probably not make as many sales as Black Ops 2, although they are [B]obviously[/B] better games.[/QUOTE] And here I thought it was a matter of opinions... Why are you comparing games that don't even have anything to do with FPS's to CoD? And I think its quite obvious why they wont get as many sales... None of those games have a multiplayer like BO2. Thats the same as if I were going to buy a CoD game just for the story. If you compare both game's singleplayers, ofc CoD is gonna suck, but you probably couldn't even compare multiplayers because those games might not even have them. And that is why people love it. Because people want a game with an entertaining multiplayer, something that CoD almost never fails to deliver. I've been a bigger fan, and the only time I can admit that they didn't really bring anything gamebreaking to the table was in MW3, where the game even went back a few steps. And I have no idea why people ask for new things in CoD games but compulsively buy the 10th rehashed remake of the first Mario game ever for that new bigger Nintendo console. Thats just being complete tools, and don't come with the "but its fun and cod isnt durr" thing. Don't make me point out the 40+ billion dollars in losses by Nintendo. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=wombo;36727790]I stopped playing and buying cod after Black ops, I understand this is adding in some rpg/rts elements or whatever and such but I'm just tired of it. I feel like it's still going to play similar, and the multiplayer will still be rage inducing. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I don't see why there's so much hype, again. Sure treyarch has arguable made the better cod games, but it's still just Cod.[/QUOTE] I hate how people forget the CoD games the old good IW made and just say Treyarch made the best ones, when in fact its the other way around. The only times IW blew it was on MW2 and MW3, and by MW3, there was no "IW" anymore tbh. A shitload of people periodicaly quit, including Bowling after the release of MW3, basically saying that the company turned into shit because they couldn't do the kinds of deals they used to do like offering new maps like they did with MW1. Treyarch on the other hand always did CoD games that never really got to IW's level, except for Black Ops and maybe WaW, but I find that little "fight" between who made the best CoD's to be handicaped. IW sort of blew it with MW2 due to Activision gripping their balls to make things faster and make more money. The same happened with MW3, which was awful in almost every way. On the other hand, ever other CoD game before was downright perfect. CoD2 and 4 anyone? If you deny those as good games, you best check yourself. WaW introduced Zombies, which IMO is overrated as fuck. Fun but still overrated, but it does gives Treyarch points for imagination. Black Ops sort of saved CoD by reintroducing servers and a new theme/story, plus a few more things, including zombies again. Not bad I guess. Although, every other CoD game before WaW was a bit bad compared to IW's releases, and even WaW and BO had their fair share of problems, be it because of the gameplay, or from running like crap. So, in short, IW started out great, rising cod to the top and ended taking it down a few steps, while Treyarch did the exact opposite, now trying to put it back on top.

[QUOTE=dass;36727920]And here I thought it was a matter of opinions... Why are you comparing games that don't even have anything to do with FPS's to CoD? And I think its quite obvious why they wont get as many sales... None of those games have a multiplayer like BO2. Thats the same as if I were going to buy a CoD game just for the story. If you compare both game's singleplayers, ofc CoD is gonna suck, but you probably couldn't even compare multiplayers because those games might not even have them. And that is why people love it. Because people want a game with an entertaining multiplayer, something that CoD almost never fails to deliver. I've been a bigger fan, and the only time I can admit that they didn't really bring anything gamebreaking to the table was in MW3, where the game even went back a few steps. And I have no idea why people ask for new things in CoD games but compulsively buy the 10th rehashed remake of the first Mario game ever for that new bigger Nintendo console. Thats just being complete tools, and don't come with the "but its fun and cod isnt durr" thing. Don't make me point out the 40+ billion dollars in losses by Nintendo. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] I hate how people forget the CoD games the old good IW made and just say Treyarch made the best ones, when in fact its the other way around. The only times IW blew it was on MW2 and MW3, and by MW3, there was no "IW" anymore tbh. A shitload of people periodicaly quit, including Bowling after the release of MW3, basically saying that the company turned into shit because they couldn't do the kinds of deals they used to do like offering new maps like they did with MW1. Treyarch on the other hand always did CoD games that never really got to IW's level, except for Black Ops and maybe WaW, but I find that little "fight" between who made the best CoD's to be handicaped. IW sort of blew it with MW2 due to Activision gripping their balls to make things faster and make more money. The same happened with MW3, which was awful in almost every way. On the other hand, ever other CoD game before was downright perfect. CoD2 and 4 anyone? If you deny those as good games, you best check yourself. WaW introduced Zombies, which IMO is overrated as fuck. Fun but still overrated, but it does gives Treyarch points for imagination. Black Ops sort of saved CoD by reintroducing servers and a new theme/story, plus a few more things, including zombies again. Not bad I guess. Although, every other CoD game before WaW was a bit bad compared to IW's releases, and even WaW and BO had their fair share of problems, be it because of the gameplay, or from running like crap. So, in short, IW started out great, rising cod to the top and ended taking it down a few steps, while Treyarch did the exact opposite, now trying to put it back on top.[/QUOTE] What I meant was the modern warfare+ cods, since they are pretty much completely different from 3 and 3 and under. I loved cod 2 and 4, but everything after 4 is just blah.

Hey neat, it's Candyman.

[QUOTE=wombo;36728305]What I meant was the modern warfare+ cods, since they are pretty much completely different from 3 and 3 and under. I loved cod 2 and 4, but everything after 4 is just blah.[/QUOTE] True... MW2 was ok at best, BO aswell. They didn't live up to any of the others potentials.

Is it me or does a lot of the model/texture look outdated compared to a lot of newer games that have recently released?

Does anyone else not get the graphics hate for COD? I mean they're not really pushing the envelope but saying that they look terrible is a bit of an exaggeration I think. I'd rather have them focus on at least trying to make innovations to the gameplay than being the next crysis or something, not that they've really been doing that either. I quit COD after MW2 though. Too many hackers online, the maps were shit, no dedicated servers, some weapons were overpowered. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, etc. If this one actually turns out to be decent, I'll grab it, but I can't help but doubt the likeliness of that.