Piece by piece, Treyarch is revealing its vision of the future -- and it's grim. Earlier this month the developer lifted the curtain on Black Ops II, confirming the next entry in Activision's juggernaut FPS franchise would be set over a decade in the future. The world is familiar, as haunting images of a war-torn Los Angeles are easily recognizable, yet the sight of hijacked, robotic drones and four-legged mechs are jarring enough to signal this game is attempting something different from the past.
Yet is all of this change enough? A few IGN editors recently had a chance to watch Black Ops II in action, and have gathered some of their thoughts about the game and the franchise as a whole.
How do you feel about the Call of Duty franchise?
Richard George, Executive Editor: I've played a ton of Call of Duty over the past several years, and was obsessed with its multiplayer (and the earliest iteration of zombies) for a time. In general it's the kind of shooter that appeals to me. It delivers a big experience that's accessible and easy to pick up, play a handful of matches, and then put down. However as the series has progressed, I grew tired of the fact that it seemed to be hitting similar beats, and while the settings changed, everything else felt familiar. The stories were borderline incomprehensible, the characters didn't really matter, the crazy set pieces started to blur. The fact that the series' developers were sticking with the past or modern eras made everything seem familiar and feel stale.
Ahead of its announcement, I really had no interest in Black Ops II. I didn't know much about it, but the past several years of Call of Duty had trained me to anticipate that it would be the same old FPS in a shiny new coat. Since that time, and particularly after watching Treyarch's demo, I've come to realize that my expectations were not entirely correct -- while still not being entirely wrong.
Andrew Goldfarb, Associate Editor: I’ve spent a lot more time with Infinity Ward’s games than with Treyarch’s, but I have a sort of love/hate relationship with the franchise as a whole. Call of Duty 2 was the first game I ever played on Xbox 360, and I loved it. A few years later, I played Call of Duty 4 religiously, enjoyed World at War's zombies and skipped the campaign, then spent a lot of time with Modern Warfare 2’s Spec Ops and multiplayer. Beyond that, I skipped the original Black Ops altogether and only played through MW3’s campaign.
Before Activision showed footage, I had pretty much no interest in Black Ops II. The franchise has always been cinematic, but the campaigns have begun to feel too scripted for me, and I just don’t have the time to invest in multiplayer that I did when I was in college. It’s not that I think the series is outright bad; I just personally haven’t been able to enjoy it in the way I did with earlier installments.
Mitch Dyer, Associate Editor: I wrote recently that
Call of Duty needs to change. Its predictable formula is becoming stale, to the point that no spectacular set piece is exciting to me any more. This is a series so reliant on always being in the middle of the craziest action that it all becomes kind of numbing. There's rarely room to breathe, and as a result, I think the assaulting action is a bit boring. Black Ops was the exception -- I loved those characters and story, even if they were all a bit out there, and thought it took players to some of the more interesting places than past entries.
What did you think of the Black Ops II demo?
Richard: This is precisely what the series needed -- a strong change in thematic direction while still keeping hold of its core franchise strengths. Black Ops II needed to capture my imagination in a way that previous entries didn't, and by shifting carefully into the future, Treyarch has found a good balance. To be clear, this is still over-the-top, twitch-based action that relies heavily on scripted moments of insanity. And while the core FPS elements don't appear to have altered too much, there are a number of changes to pacing, mission clarity (both through level design and the user interface) and modes like Strike Force that seem to be adding a considerable amount of franchise evolution as well. Nothing here is as bold as what we saw when Modern Warfare first arrived, but it's the closest I've seen to that.
Andrew: The Black Ops II demo made me do a total 180. This is now one of my most anticipated games of the year. Honestly, seeing the campaign demo, I feel like Treyarch has been listening to the feedback fans have been giving. This feels different than the last few COD campaigns. Setting Black Ops II in the future sets it apart enough that it doesn’t look like the same Call of Duty game, but making it only a decade away keeps it realistic. There are no crazy futuristic cities with flying cars here. In the demo Activision showed us, we saw a familiar Los Angeles, but one besieged by futuristic planes and soldiers carrying high-tech weapons. Treyarch has kept it grounded enough to be believable and, more importantly, scarily plausible.
Strike Force gives me a lot of hope for the franchise as a whole. Fail-able missions and multiple endings are a huge step in the right direction for Black Ops II, and these missions are probably the most interesting part of the content we saw. Instead of looking at this as just another blockbuster shooter, I’m looking at it as a game with the potential to breathe new life into the franchise. I’m not sure what Infinity Ward is working on at the moment (probably Modern Warfare 4), but if Treyarch continues to innovate, I’m definitely looking forward to watching how the series evolves with other teams.
Mitch: Had you told me this was Modern Warfare 4, I'd have believed you. Very little about this screams Black Ops, at least in this closed instance. Stuff blows up, cars almost crush main man Mason no fewer than four times, and dozens of bad guys die. What the Black Ops II demo nails, and I think this is something more specific to Treyarch's storytelling despite Infinity Ward's most recent effort, is the discomfort of seeing a familiar place burn. Downtown Los Angeles is a place I know well, and seeing the skyline vanish while in the thick of it was pretty impressive. What stands out more than this is the strategic Strike Force mode, which gives you the opportunity to slow down, step out of the action (or enter it in new ways), and think about what you're doing. It's tactical in a way that makes me think of a modern Rainbow Six, and that excites me more than zombies or spec-ops ever could.
Do you have any questions or concerns about Black Ops II?
Richard: I do wonder if Treyarch can deliver the same sense of franchise innovation to multiplayer. The thematic shift and adjustments to single player pacing aren't exactly applicable to the other significant COD element. I'm curious to see how that will play out. Zombies appears to now be a third pillar in the franchise's design. I'm not sure I'm overly fond of that. I loved the concept when it was a surprise -- a simple bonus for beating World at War. Now that it involves space monkeys and all sorts of other deprave concepts, it's lost a lot of what made it appealing. It will be interesting to see if some key design alterations can recapture the magic.
Beyond that, I still have plenty of questions about the single player experience. I wonder if the shift in time will still be interesting after a few hours -- will I care about mechs and drones later on, or will the familiarity of everything else weigh that down? Will the story be sensible? Will I care at all about my character or the supporting cast? Will COD once again try for some cheap shock tactics at the expense of good taste? The franchise as a whole has developed some rather bad habits. It will be fascinating to see if it can shake them off.
Andrew: I’m still a little nervous about how far into the future we’ll go. As I said before, the setting only works because it’s just barely in the future. Jumping any further ahead than that makes me wonder how the game would be received -- are Call of Duty fans ready to suspend their disbelief that much? I’m also curious to see how the span from the 1980s to the future will work. Can the 80s still be interesting at this point, or will it just be more of the same?
Treyarch also needs to show off the multiplayer. Adding Strike Force missions and branching paths to the single-player campaign is a huge step in the right direction, but that doesn’t mean multiplayer can rest on its laurels. I want to see meaningful changes. New killstreaks and mission types would be great, but let’s mix it up further than that. I’m nervous that multiplayer will just be more of the same, which would be disappointing considering the changes in single-player. Call of Duty obviously does insanely well, and to some degree I can understand the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ mentality, but I’d still like to see Treyarch try something new.
Mitch: I'm interested to see the next step in Zombies, Rich is silly. Yes, it's dumb, but it knows what it's doing, and it's a ton of fun because it lets itself go. Come on, the last one had Buffy and Machete in it. I'd love to see some Strike Force influence appear in the new Zombies mode, perhaps giving one player an overhead view of everything while issuing orders or marking targets. My main question, though, is about the villain of the campaign. Treyarch is really pleased with itself when discussing Menendez, the man with motivation to end the world. As someone who enjoyed hanging out with Woods and co., I suspect I'll dig this dude when we start learning more about him. I'm still not sold that the battle to find him will be anything out of the ordinary, though.
Source : http://www.ign.com
