12 Replies Latest reply: Feb 8, 2013 5:41 PM by sennalike RSS

Who here thinks BO2 is not up to par with its predecessors??(excluding MW3 cause its garbage)

NewB

Call this a review if you want but here's my side of the story:When you compare BO2 to MW3, which in my opinion, is the worst COD game in the franchise, BO2 is in a way very similar to MW3. However this time they buffed it up a little bit. While a few bad spawns which are reminiscent of MW3 still plague this game, these spawns aren't necessarily as bad. Camping definitely diminished by at least 3/4 compared to the MILLIONS of campers you'd see in almost every corner you could think of in MW3. Lots of weapon and perk balance is also very notable too, Take a few OP guns from MW3 like the Type 95, MP7,and the FMG9s for example They are still pretty strong guns compared to the Skorpion Evo, PDW, and the AN-94 which are also good guns, but they are evenly balanced and not so OP. those are the good things about BO2. Now for the bad things... I never wanted to say this, but the Zombies is utter garbage in this game. I don't know why but it just feels really bland, boring, and nothing special. The only "GOOD" that Zombies has to offer is Tranzit;but even with that map alone, very VERY little happens on it. I'll say that it is still inferior even to BO1 zombies, which in my opinion was the best zombies they ever did. So if you haven't played zombies on BO2 yet, that's a good thing, cause its a complete utter joke and accomplishes so little. its the worst zombies i've ever seen in my entire life, so don't waste your time, stay away from it. Campaign was descent but it just felt too weak and bland with too much filler for me to call it awesome. With all that out of the way, now for the server connection quality. Just like MW3, the connection is also utter garbage on BO2. Its not as bad as the MW3 connection, but bad enough for me to say its garbage. Lag compensation is still bad but yet again I still think MW3's lag compensation is the worst ever.

 

Summary: Its definitely not quite up to par with its predecessors "BEFORE" MW3, especially coming off of what many people consider Treyarch's best game(BO1), and for most people, the "classic" of the whole franchise itself that came before it(MW2, arguably the best COD game to date.) I will, however say this, its not another MW2, and its not another BO1, but as a standalone, its decent, its not the worst, but its definitely not one of their best; and it came very close to being the worst, but thankfully not.

 

 

SCORES: Multiplayer - 8.5/10                              The game as a whole, I'll give a 7/10.

                Zombies - 3/10

                Campaign - 6/10

 

So guys, what's your side of the story??       

  • Re: Who here thinks BO2 is not up to par with its predecessors??(excluding MW3 cause its garbage)
    Izjar11

    Summary: Its definitely not quite up to par with its predecessors "BEFORE" MW3, especially coming off of what many people consider Treyarch's best game(BO1), and for most people, the "classic" of the whole franchise itself that came before it(MW2, arguably the best COD game to date.) I will, however say this, its not another MW2, and its not another BO1, but as a standalone, its decent, its not the worst, but its definitely not one of their best; and it came very close to being the worst, but thankfully not.

    First mistake: Comparing MW3 vs BO2. They are different and only feel the same because they are in essence the same thing. My suggestion to you forget what previous titles were like, either you play this one and shut up or your play previous titles and revel in them.

     

    Yet you try to justify how BO2 is better through your post and in the conclusion you say its "no quiet up to par" with MW3? What the? Make up your mind.

     

    This post is one large contradiction, which is fine dude. This game confuses me as well, because it feels fun, yet it doesn't its strange.

  • Re: Who here thinks BO2 is not up to par with its predecessors??(excluding MW3 cause its garbage)
    illstplaya2live

    Your logic is flawed. Seriously flawed. Campers should have no affect on whether or not a game sucks. People camp in every cod. It has nothing to do with the game but instead the people who play it.

    Now that thats out of the way,

    Mw2 was the best cod by far.  2nd best graphics behind bo2 , best sound in any cod ever, great matchmaking, great gameplay, great variety and guns, best maps in any cod, most fun out of any cod. Only thing that wasn't good was the security. Hackers are rampant.

    Bo1 was the worst cod. You must have a short memory. Bo1 terrible lag, extremely bad matchmaking, shooting a full clip into someone and them not dying, bad graphics, extremely bad sound, too many bugs and glitches. The only thing good about bo1 is no hackers, theater, and zombies.

    Mw3 was pretty good except for a few things, like hackers, glitches but those got taken care of very fast, theater sucked, no combat record for other players. Good things - matchmaking (sort of), not that much lag but it was there, good graphics, good sound.

    Bo2 - Good things- graphics, sound, matchmaking, good balance and gameplay. But the bad things are the combat record, hackers are rampant, glitches, Treyarch not addressing the hackers or glitches, bad port on the ps3, freezing, auto shutdown, theater not working.

    Overall mw2 was the best. Bo1 was the worst, mw3 is in between mw2 and bo2, and bo2 is second best just for gameplay. But bo2 is tied for the worst, for everything else like support. I would say bo2 has the potential to be the second best cod but right now I rank it second worst with bo1 being the worst.

  • Re: Who here thinks BO2 is not up to par with its predecessors??(excluding MW3 cause its garbage)
    sennalike

    "Best" "worst" mmm....all just opinion, some may agree with you, others wont.  Interesting you mention BO2 predecessors but only go back as far as MW2 when a lot of people will say CoD4 or W@W are their favourites.  For me W@W is my favourite and probably always will be. 

     

    Truth is there is little point comparing one CoD to another, they all have very different features.  The only thing you can justifiably compare is the "playability" in terms of how the game runs. i.e. lag, lag compensation etc.