Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 (2012) review

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2

PS3, Xbox 360, PC
Activision, Treyarch

FPS, Action

Rated: ESRB Mature, Pegi 18+ 

For many, Black Ops 2 was highly anticipated, as it marked the popular COD-series return, after the generally negatively received MW3. MW3 was troubled with a very short development time, and an inexperienced dev-team. Thus, it ended up harvesting an unusual amount of negativity from the online community. Many others think the franchise has run it's course, and believe that Black Ops 2 will just be more of the same. I'm happy to announce that, though it's a little to familiar to give you the hundreds of hours you got out of COD4, there's still enough here to make this a very worthy buy.

Let me get i clear. Black Ops 2 is the best of the COD-series. If you had to play only one COD-game for the rest of your life, it should be this one. Now for it's time, it can't compare to COD4 in innovation, because it does feel very much like you've played this game before, but there is a reason why COD is popular. Quite simply, because the formula works, and Black Ops 2 does it better than ever.

Though most all of you buy COD for the online experience, i have to mention the single player. In the COD franchises latest entry, it's very much like it's been before. A globe spanning adventure with epic action-sequences, dull characters and little to no depth. That's not to say it isn't worth playing though. It's like a tightly choreographed Hollywood-blockbuster movie, where you get to play the part of the epic hero who shoots everybody and saves the world. I know asking for depth in a COD-campaign is way more than can be expected, but it shouldn't be. I really wish that, despite the fact that most people only want the multiplayer, they would put just a little bit of effort into making the single-player more interesting. The reason why the interest for the SP is reduced every year, is because the quality is reduced every year. If they put just a little bit more effort into it, more people would feel they got more for their money. For the first time in COD though, the campaign offer choices. What you do in certain scenes, can have a significant impact on the story's outcome. This is a very welcome addition, but it's not perfectly implemented. In fact, in most cases you don't even know you have a choice. The only way to know about the choice, is to either fail at the objective on-screen and se the game progress rather than respawning you at you'r previous checkpoint, or to look at the mission-select screen. The feature become little more than a novelty, seeing as there is no subtle indicators letting you know you have a choice.

In World at War, Treyarch introduced Call of Duty: Zombies. A survivalist game-mode where you fought of never-ending hordes of the undead, trying to survive as long as you could. Thru map-packs and the release of COD: Black Ops, they have greatly expanded it, since it's modest first beginnings, and made it a fan-favoritt and critically acclaimed epic. The problem is that they feel a need to constantly innovate, or rather make changes; for better or for worse. With Black Ops 2, they removed the traditional Zombie mode in the standard release of the game, and instead added a transit-mode. It's hard to explain, but it's basically many small maps, and you go between them on a bus, witch can be upgraded. It's a cool concept, but it needs more consideration, and final adjustments. Luckily, they later, thru map packs, have added more traditional Zombie-maps, witch innovate, without making an entirely new, unrecognizable game mode. Thus, everybody gets served, and i'll say it worked out for the better.

And now, finally on to the main event. The multiplayer. In Black Ops 2, the main new features are the pick-10 system, and score-streaks. Beyond that, there's all the usual stuff. New guns, new maps, new menus, new kill-streak (now entitled score-streaks) rewards  and such. The pick-10 system is basically a new way to create-a-class. Instead of getting a set of perks, set of primary- and secondary weapons and their attachments, you get 10 "points" pr class. A perk takes 1 point. One lethal grenade takes one, as does each weapon and each individual attachment. The system, also introduces "wild cards". One takes up one point in you'r class, and gives you the option to for instance have to perks in slot 2, two primary weapons or a third weapon attachment. It creates a great variety and a much deeper and more meaningful system. Score-streaks, witch replaces the killstreaks, is probably the most genius feature added to the series, since COD4. The problem with the killstreak system, is that it encourages camping, lone-wolf and egoistic gameplay. Score-streaks on the other hand, as the name suggest, counts score pr life, rather than amount of kills. Seeing as kills gives you score, it means you can still get get rewards like K9-unit (attack dogs), Gunship and similar, by getting consecutive kills, but now you also build towards your rewards by capturing flags, doing objectives or being more precise. For example headshots, double-kills etc. This at the very least gives some level of reward for playing the objective and being a team-player. With advantage, they could've made this even more distinct, as in given even less score for kills, and even more for objectives.

Beyond what mentioned above, i've gotta say that the multiplayer does deserve props for having amazing gun-balance, and having been supported with the best set of DLC's ever delivered in the COD-franchise. They provide maps that almost always surpass the once that shipped with the original game, something witch is quite rare.

I'm quite sad that todays blockbuster games have resorted to such safe-play. They may not have lost the desire to innovate, but money-hungry publishers behind just keep placing the same order every year. It's a formula they know they earn a lot of money on, and they aren't willing to risk anything in innovation. I'm therefor so glad that Treyarch did the best they could here, and made it the most innovative COD in years. As a quick reminder though, let me say; that does not mean all too much. It's a solid entry in a franchise, witch i would be all over if it was the first of it's kind. But, despite it being the best in the series, i was tired of it after a very short time, quite simply because it's still Call of Duty, and i've already played it countless hours. If you've never played COD, i definitely recommend this game. If you'r a series veteran, you should still get it, especially now, as it's dropped in price, but don't expect spending too much time in it.

My final score if it was the first of it's kind, or the first in a few years, i'd give it an 85. /100, and some people may think it's more fair to review as if it's a standalone, but seeing as i chose to not do it like that, but rather compare it to the rest of the series, and not only to other games, i'll give Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 a 72/100. Solid, but lacking innovation and a fresh new feel.