Call of Duty: Black Ops II (PS3) Multiplayer Review

Competitive Multiplayer


Gameplay
Controller-wise, Black Ops II sets the industry standard for shooters due to how smooth, intuitive and precise the controls are. Unlike many games in the same genre, input lag seems to be completely non-existent, at least for the copy I played. Now, moving on to the fun stuff. A great gameplay feature that returns from Black Ops is the ability to dolphin-dive, which is visually pleasing because it looks cool when someone else does it and also provides the player a means of getting low quickly in order to avoid enemy fire. Another fun use for diving is combining it with Theatre mode to do cool montages using dive kills or to make your own short little action movie which wouldn't be complete without a slow-motion dive!

Bringing it back to actual competitive gameplay though, Black Ops II comes across as a very casual shooter, a game that almost anyone can pick up and play without prior experience. In my opinion, this simplicity and ability to appeal to such a wide audience serves as the game's biggest strength and its biggest weakness. The beauty of the Call of Duty series is that anyone can play the game regardless of their skill level. It is something that you can just pop in at the end of a hard day at work to relieve some stress because it doesn't require you to think, just to play. Unfortunately, the fact that you don't really need to think also represents the game's biggest weakness as gameplay becomes deeply monotonous in the sense that it becomes a competition of speed and reflexes rather than a battle of wits. You don't have to think tactically if you want to win in Black Ops II, you just need to be able to play at the highest sensitivity, react quickly to any movement and fire indiscriminately at the enemy before he/she can fire at you. And therein lies the rub, there is little room for tactics or strategy in Black Ops II. While other games do not necessarily require you to be very good to succeed, Black Ops II is a whole different ballpark where teamwork rarely matters and where the strength of the individual players on a team matter more than unit cohesion. Don't get me wrong, you can play as a team and do quite well but ultimately, it's the quick-drawing and fast-firing players that will succeed.

While dexterity and great reflexes tend to be the prime determinants of success in Black Ops II, it does not mean that there is no room for teamwork or tactical gameplay. To the contrary, there are many opportunities where unit cohesion or a strategic mind can give you an edge over enemy opponents. For example, in objective-based game modes, teams that can communicate and work together well will almost always have an edge over a team composed of lone-wolf players. However, the likelihood of ending up on a team where everyone is willing to work together rather than just playing like it's every man for himself ranges from very low to nil. The only real way to find a good enough team that you can work well with is to form your own team from friends or being a part of a clan. Then again, this is no real guarantee because of the various issues with party matchmaking which usually sees one or two members removed from your party and put into the other team. Similarly, one can play tactically by constantly moving, flanking the enemy and taking the less beaten path to outmanoeuvre the enemy but most plans you attempt to execute get thrown right out the window the moment you engage in a firefight with a player with faster reflexes and a better weapon.

To clarify, I'm not saying that the game is bad because it focuses on the individual more than the team, rather, I'm trying to elucidate the idea that this makes gameplay extremely narrow and repetitive where every match and every firefight boils down to two things, how fast you can move the right analog stick and how fast you can pull the trigger. Black Ops II's focus on the individual is not necessarily a bad thing though, seeing as it does provide players the opportunity to play the game how they like through the various customisation options present in the game. The one thing that I've always loved about the Call of Duty series is the ludicrously deep level of customisation available since Modern Warfare. In the past, this customisation system was given the unimaginative names of Create-a-Class and Create-a-Class 2.0. Treyarch has now changed the name of this system to the similarly dreary Pick Ten. Don't let the completely boring and uninspired name fool you though, the Pick Ten system can be barrels of fun, for someone who enjoys customising weapons and equipment to give it that personal touch. This new system works by giving each custom class a maximum of ten allocation points whereby each element costs one allocation point. An element, in this case, can refer to primary weapons, secondary weapons, attachments, perks, grenades and Wildcards. I know what you're thinking, "What the heck is a Wildcard?" Well, let me explain. A Wildcard is an element that allows the player to further modify other elements allowing an extra attachment for the primary weapon or allowing a primary weapon to be used in the secondary weapon slot or allowing an additional perk from one of the three perk tiers. The catch is that usually, you'll have to forgo at least two allocation points you could have used in order to play the Wildcard and attach the extra element (based on whichever Wildcard you chose) to the class.

While I do love the ludicrously deep level of customisation afforded by the Pick Ten system, there is this sense that it is ultimately pointless because the gunplay is so balanced-out that whatever you do to modify your weapon feels like it has little effect other than aesthetics and minimal contribution to recoil, hipfire accuracy or other such elements. Let me clarify, I'm not complaining about the gunplay itself. It's fantastic and extremely well-implemented, probably a lot better than the previous games. The problem I have is with the guns themselves and the things that Pick Ten let's you do to them. Every gun feels almost the same without attachments and when you do add attachments or pick perks that affect them, then the effects on them are roughly the same. Other than the way the guns look and sound, they feel a lot like the same gun. This is good in one sense as there aren't very obvious overpowered weapons or overpowered combinations that you see every "pro" running with but at the same time, it detracts from the sense of freedom and creativity that has become intertwined with the Call of Duty series.

Speaking of things that have become so ingrained with Call of Duty, killstreaks return in Black Ops II in the slightly revamped form of scorestreaks. Instead of rewarding awesome offensive and defensive capabilities through maintaining an extremely long murder spree, the system now revolves around players earning awards by achieving a certain amount of points through actions that provide you with a score such as kills, assists and capturing objectives while that player is alive. When a player dies, the score is reset and players have to start from scratch. Most of the scorestreaks are generally insignificant as they are killstreaks that return from previous games (e.g. RC-XD, UAV, Counter-UAV, Care Package, K9 unit and EMP) or are futurised versions of previously featured killstreaks (e.g. the Lightning Strike replacing the Air Strike, the Hellstorm replacing the Predator, the Orbital VSAT replacing the SR-71 Blackbird, the Escort Drone replacing the AH-6 Overwatch, the Lodestar replacing the AC-130 and the VTOL Warship replacing Chopper Gunner). There are a few new and interesting rewards that incorporate existing and in-development technology such as the Guardian (loosely based on the Active Denial System), the Dragonfire (a militarised take on commercial quadrotors), the A.G.R (an autonomous unmanned ground combat vehicle) and Swarm (a pack of hunter-killer drones probably based off autonomous drone technology currently being developed).  Personally, I like the scorestreak system a lot more than the killstreak system because I'm not an uber-1337 MLG player who is able to sustain 25-kill killstreaks. Aside from benefiting my general lack of skill, the scorestreak is also a great step forward for the series because it rewards players that play the objective as well as rewarding those excellent players that are able to cut down the enemy team with ease.

In terms of game modes, we're given the classic buffet of first-person shooter staples including a hearty serving of deathmatches (i.e. Team Deathmatch, Free-for-All), a smorgasbord of objective-based gameplay (i.e. Kill Confirmed, Domination, Demolition, Capture the Flag, Headquarters, Search and Destroy) and a delightful dessert menu in the form of returning Wager Matches (Gun Game, Sticks and Stones, One in the Chamber, Sharpshooter) albeit with XP rewarded instead of the now-scrapped CoD points. Combat Training also returns with a slightly larger range of gameplay options in the form of Bootcamp (mixed teams of players and bots taking on each other), Objective (only unlocked at level 10, basically the same as bootcamp except with objectives) and Bot Stomp (much like the original Combat Training from Black Ops except without any rewards). The only new game mode, if you can call it that, is Hardpoint which is basically just a moving version of King of the Hill.

Presentation
Apparently, the game runs in the magical 60 frames per second that graphics whiz-kids consider to be the pinnacle of graphical effects. Personally, I don't really see any difference between a game with 60 frames per second and a game with 30 frames per second. Black Ops II is definitely more colourful than its predecessors, in the sense that it has a blend of colours rather than just 50 shades of brown. Like I mentioned in the single-player section of the review, there's a lot of shoddy copy-paste looking jobs in terms of textures but it ultimately does look pretty good. On a side note, I cannot comprehend how the developers can forget to animate/render rounds in fresh magazines (to be fair, they do animate/render rounds into SOME magazines but very few of the magazines are actually loaded). It makes me look like I'm shooting a gun with no ammunition and that makes me feel stupid. Considering that the multiplayer factions represent uber-badass special forces commandos, it makes them look even more stupid for not loading ammunition into their magazines.

The sound is a little hit and miss with the score carried over from the campaign being a highpoint and everything else being a low point. Guns sound generic and bullets striking different surfaces give off the same sound regardless of the material of the surfaces you've fired on. The weapons don't sound like they should at all, in fact, they sound a lot quieter than their real-life counterparts (except the fictional weapons, of course, since they have no real-life counterparts).

Zombies


Without a doubt, my favourite part of any Treyarch-made Call of Duty game (at least from World at War onwards) will have to be Zombies. From its humble beginnings as a fun little distraction where you and/or three other players defended a building from unlimited waves of Nazi Zombies, the Zombies game mode has become a full-fledged part of the series that has travelled far and wide (even to the Moon!) as well as adding a fantastic backstory that players can learn about if they pay attention and find all the easter eggs Treyarch have hidden in the maps.

Gameplay
As with the campaign and competitive multiplayer aspects of Black Ops II, the controls are fantastically well designed and generally brilliantly thought-out. In terms of controls, there's no difference that I can think of from previous games. On the subject of actual gameplay though, many things have changed since the earliest version of Zombies from World at War. For one, as well as the basic Survival game mode present in all maps since Nacht der Untoten, the game contains two new modes called TranZit and Grief. TranZit is in many ways similar to Survival albeit with the added ability for players to travel between different parts of the map known as Green Run. Players can travel between locations either on foot (not recommended due to demon babies and the general zombie population) or by bus (recommended but be sure to bring lots of ammunition and planks to beat off the attacking zombies and fixing whatever holes that the zombies climb through). Grief is a nifty new game mode where two teams of players (CDC and CIA) are vying for victory but are unable to directly hurt each other. To win, at least one member of a team must survive while the other team is decimated by the veritable horde of zombies both teams must face. While teams cannot hurt each other, they can "grief" the other team by tossing grenades to down them or throwing a special power-up (like Boomer Bile from Left 4 Dead 2) that attracts zombies.

When it comes down to battling the hordes of the undead, there's not much different from previous incarnations of the series. You shoot zombies (aiming at the head to cause maximum damage), board up windows, get better weapons and perks, run around to find the mystery box and generally survive. Also, you get a lot of red on you. Not sure if you can go to the Winchester, but you definitely spend a lot of time getting red on you. The series continues the narrative in the background in lieu of an overt storyline. If you want to learn more about the story, you have to really dig deep, pay attention to the dialogue and discover the easter eggs. Unfortunately, there are a lot of easter eggs. I haven't found any of them personally but I have been told by others and through watching YouTube videos with them. TranZit mixes things up in letting you move around between various locations and providing even more doors/obstacles that you can waste your hard-earned money/experience points on! The fantastic thing about TranZit is that it alleviates (to a certain extent) the boredom that sets in from getting to ridiculously high rounds and running around the same area to kite zombies then kill them. By providing players the ability to change locations, the game forces them to develop new tactics and approach the situation in a different way to stay alive, providing far more hours of gameplay. Grief is an interesting new approach to Zombies and competitive multiplayer in general providing an outlet for players' mischief, allowing them to carry out some creative and imaginative forms of mayhem since they cannot actually hurt enemy players. To be honest, I've only played three or four games of Grief and I've had quite a lot of fun but I suspect the game can be quite frustrating when playing it often, especially since the map becomes a grenade fest around any player that gets downed.

The main criticism I have for Zombies is that there's no tutorial or explanation regarding the new mechanics of the game. Seasoned Zombies players who've gone through the various DLC maps probably know their way around but I've always really only played vanilla Zombies and only understand the mechanics of Survival. I'm sure there are other players like me who were initially confused in TranZit by the bus and why it wouldn't work. In addition to that, the new crafting system is confusing as well and has no real explanation regarding how it works. Arguably, it's to make the game more challenging since providing a blueprint probably kills the point but I missed the crafting table entirely when I first played through a match and only found about it through a friend I was playing with. Keeping on with that criticism is the problem of finding parts, I for one have no clue whatsoever what parts can be used to make what. Admittedly, one could go on the internet to find this out but I like playing games without additional help in order to provide more of a challenge, which means I'll be bumbling around like a moron trying to figure things out while trying to navigate around a zombie apocalypse. As well as that, Survival once again suffers from the same problem of getting extremely boring and repetitive in the later rounds as you kite zombies and lead a rotting flesh train while periodically shooting at them to stay alive. The characters for Black Ops II Zombies also don't strike a chord with me and I'm not a particularly big fan of their voice work. I'd much rather play as Tank, Nikolai, Takeo or Richtofen and listen to their fantastically voiced dialogue recorded by industry legends Steven Blum, Fred Tatasciore, Tom Kane and Nolan North respectively.

Presentation
Much like the other two components of the game, Zombies looks good enough but is showing the signs of age coming with using a fairly old engine that's only been given minor updates and upgrades over the years. The colour scheme is dark and foreboding, adding to a nice foreboding atmosphere. In addition to that, the sound design is brilliant, using a combination of eerie sounds and creepy music to make even the most stoic gamer squirm a little bit in his/her seat.

Conclusion
Black Ops II offers a robust selection of multiplayer that should keep most standard variations of gamers entertained for a long time. However, some players may feel that the game is all too familiar and get a dreary sense of "been there, done that" which can detract from overall enjoyment of the game.

Pros:
Classic fast-paced Call of Duty gameplay.
Pick Ten allows for insane class customisation.
Fantastic controls.
Scorestreaks now reward you for playing the objective instead of being a mass murderer.
Incredible weapon balancing.
Zombies is bigger and better than ever.

Cons:
A majority of textures, weapons and sounds copy-pasted from previous games.
Gameplay can become stale incredibly fast.
No teamwork, too much emphasis on one-man army style gameplay.
Tactics? What tactics?
The IW engine showing its age.
No innovation despite ridiculous marketing campaign calling the game revolutionary.
Community is still mostly whiny tweens complaining about lag and yelling obscenities.

Multiplayer Score = 38/50

Total Score = 73/100

The Backlash against Microtransactions: Why It's Immature and Wrong

Hola readers, if there are any that actually come here regularly. Sorry for the lack of updates in recent weeks, it's taking a very long time to write the multiplayer review for Black Ops II because I want to be as detailed and impartial as possible, leading to a lot of editing and a lot of editorial changes to the review. To placate any regular readers, which I'm sure there are none, I thought I'd write a small opinion piece on the recent furore against microtransactions following their introduction to Dead Space 3 and EA's Chief Financial Officer announcing that all their future games will include microtransactions before taking it back about a day ago. Once again, this is my opinion and for the conspiracy enthusiasts among you, I am not paid by any video game companies (although I wish it were the case) to defend them or promote their products.

A Brief Background on the Kerfuffle
Before we get to the meat of the issue, let's talk about what microtransactions are in the first place. As I understand them, microtransactions involve a system with a game, usually a free-to-play game, that allows players to purchase virtual items like weapons, vehicles, equipment or hats for real-life money. Aside from a few jabs at so-called freemium games, a portmanteau of free and premium, usually criticising the idea that players could feasibly skip the whole experience grind and just pay to get better equipment for their characters, microtransactions have been largely uncontroversial in the video game community.

The catalyst for all the hate and rage against the corporate machine stems from EA's decision to incorporate microtransactions into Dead Space 3, a full-priced retail game. Most of the criticism directed at EA involved the usual spiel of them being money-grubbing corporate leeches who were trying to drain gamers of their hard-earned cash. The more reasonable members of the gaming community pointed out that these purchases were entirely optional. The thing that infuriates me the most about this latest expression of what I like to call "gamer's entitlement" is that all the anger is directed at something that hasn't been controversial in the least in other games like Battlefield 3, Assassin's Creed III, Need for Speed, World of Warcraft, League of Legends but suddenly becomes a huge issue when a single-player game published by EA is involved? I mean, come on, even Xbox Live uses microtransactions when you want to customise your Avatar. So, gamers are okay when they can pay to win when fighting other players but get pissed when they can pay to win against AI?

Again, rather predictably, gamers are up-in-arms at EA and have been calling their brethren to boycott all EA games until they fix this travesty and remove microtransactions as a concept, damning it to the dustbin of video game history.

Why is Hating Microtransactions Immature and Wrong?
In short, because it's an optional payment. Let me put this in a way that some of the less mature gamers can understand. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE PART IN THE MICROTRANSACTIONS TO ENJOY THE GAME. The whole point of microtransactions is that they are optional whereby people can choose to pay a small amount of money to give them a headstart in the game. If you want to go through the grind as part of your experience, then by all means, do it. Look, I'm not a fan for paying for virtual items in a game with legal tender but I genuinely couldn't give a toss if someone else decides they need cooler hats in Team Fortress 2 or more resources in Dead Space 3. The brilliant thing about video games is that people can enjoy different parts of the game or enjoy playing the game in any number of ways. To highlight how illogical all this misplaced hate is, I'll use an example. Imagine for a second, you are a person who dislikes bananas. One day, you see someone who is eating a banana. You then proceed to walk up to them, complain that bananas are the root of all evil and promptly give the banana a dressing down for being a waste of money even though you haven't spent a single dollar of your own money on it.

Actually, if you think about it, gamers should love microtransactions because they help to subsidise games and keeping them at the normal retail price of $60. Think about it. Why would companies jump on the microtransaction bandwagon unless they knew that it was a surefire way for them to make more money? If that's the case, it'd go a long way to help retail games stay at a fairly reasonable price since publishers have found a brand-new way to keep their profit margins without bumping up the prices and chasing away all their customers. If you still think that's money-grubbing and don't want to have anything to do with microtransactions, then, fine, boycott the entire catalogue of games published by EA, even if you do enjoy some of their other games. To take it further, why don't you boycott games by other publishers that use microtransactions as well? Why not boycott Ubisoft or Activision Blizzard? To use another stupid example, it'd be like boycotting a Quarter Pounder because McDonald's charges more for extra patties in a Big Mac.

Look, I'm happy for people to have their opinion regarding microtransactions. It's fine that people don't trust it and think that it shouldn't be part of video games. I respect that. What I cannot respect is the sheep-like response of the community in general who are basically painting microtransactions as the arrival of the Anti-Christ of gaming. As a nickel and dime gamer myself, I understand the desire not to have to spend extra money to play a game but why care about microtransactions if they aren't hurting you personally. Sure, someone else's wallet might take a hit but does that really affect you? If you say that in multiplayer games, it could give the p-l-ayer (pun intended) an unfair advantage, then you're dead wrong. Developers nowadays understand the need for balance and tend to balance their multiplayer games extremely well. If the things that people get from microtransactions are overpowered though, you don't have to wait long for the community outrage and the resulting patch nerfing that item. Also, don't forget that because these players have paid for the equipment, they never underwent the grind to get them which means more likely than not, they haven't picked up any new skills or improved their ability along the way.

Conclusion
Anyway, that's my two cents on the issue. If you want more in-depth discussion and detailed analysis, you can buy the Additional Information Article Pack for the low price of $5.00. Just kidding. The next article will likely be the multiplayer review of Black Ops II, to be published some time in the near future. Until then.

Renegade Sandwich, out.