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

Call of Duty Black Ops II Playstation 3

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

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??       

Level 1
Likes: 4
Posts: 20
Registered: ‎21-11-2011
12 REPLIES

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

in reply to NewB11

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.

"We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level
of our training"
Level 75
Likes: 9199
Posts: 16478
Registered: ‎14-11-2011

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

in reply to Izjar11

I'll never forget how good the old ones were. and this one isn't necessarily as bad as others perceive, but its just not as good like MW2 or BO1, don't get me wrong. I will also say BO2 is more complete( or should i say more finished).

Level 1
Likes: 4
Posts: 20
Registered: ‎21-11-2011
Highlighted

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

in reply to NewB11

NewB wrote:

I'll never forget how good the old ones were. and this one isn't necessarily as bad as others perceive, but its just not as good like MW2 or BO1, don't get me wrong. I will also say BO2 is more complete( or should i say more finished).

From experience and I hope this happens again, BO1 was very much unplayable for a good while after its release, a good while. The game got better after time. They got lucky because the PSN system was hacked and they had two months to make it up.

"We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level
of our training"
Level 75
Likes: 9199
Posts: 16478
Registered: ‎14-11-2011

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

in reply to NewB11

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.

Level 30
Likes: 343
Posts: 3248
Registered: ‎21-09-2011

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

in reply to illstplaya2live

BO1 had the best thing ever that BO2 still does though, which are Wager match/Party game modes. those are actually the highlights of both games for me, it was a perfect addition to COD and always will be. MW3 had it too while FFA gunplay was in there for a bit, its one of the only things about MW3 I couldn't really bash on.

Level 1
Likes: 4
Posts: 20
Registered: ‎21-11-2011

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

in reply to illstplaya2live

I liked mw3 the thing was it was a little harder than mw2 and find had a little more recoil. They all weren't laser beans with a few tions like mw2. Yes the netcode was obviouslu off compared to mw2 and waw but the gameplay was fun there was a good variety of maps and they added some cool ideas to cod with the point streaks and different strike packaged I'm not a m hater it had its downside like stil second chance and dead man's hand but I enjoyed the game. Black ops 2 has potential to be super fun and great but the game itself infrastructure wise I.e. menu lag online lag bugs glitches is severely weighing it down

Level 11
Likes: 60
Posts: 579
Registered: ‎25-11-2012

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

in reply to ColdChilln88

Wow terrible spelling sorry guys on my phone

Level 11
Likes: 60
Posts: 579
Registered: ‎25-11-2012

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

in reply to NewB11

"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.

Level 38
Likes: 984
Posts: 4269
Registered: ‎28-07-2011

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

in reply to sennalike

WaW, just loved hopping into a tank now and again. Big open maps that still worked perfectly that favoured snipers. Might just have a go of the lovely laziness available in that game again.

Level 9
Likes: 65
Posts: 363
Registered: ‎14-11-2012

Studios