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.

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

"You can't kill me!"

Call of Duty: Black Ops II (2012) is the highly anticipated sequel to Call of Duty: Black Ops (2010) and ninth overall game in the Call of Duty series following Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (2011). The quote I used to open this review may be recognised as a memorable quote from Sergeant Frank Woods, a main character from both Black Ops and Black Ops II but I really intended it as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the juggernaut that is Call of Duty. Yes, once again, my review is late but as with Warfighter, I wanted to put the game through its paces. Plus, with the new features of nonlinearity and multiple endings, I had to go through multiple play-throughs to be able to write a comprehensive and factual review. 

SPOILER WARNING: There will be spoilers ahead.

Campaign

Story

Black Ops II takes place in two distinct time frames, one set between 1986 to 1989 in the dying days of the first Cold War, and the other set during a new Cold War taking place in 2025. The game follows David "Section" Mason during the 2025 timeframe and occasionally time jumps to the 1980s where you primarily play as his father, Alex Mason. Apart from their familial relations, the two timeframes are connected by a Nicaraguan narco-terrorist named Raul Menendez, first encountered by Papa Mason and later serving as the antagonist to Mason 2.0. The 1980s portion of the game charts his rise to power while providing the backdrop for his actions and motivations in taking down the United States and China as well as his obsession with making Section and Woods suffer. Fast forward to 2025 and Menendez is the head of Cordis Die, a worldwide political movement seemingly inspired by the Occupy movement (and completely unaware that they are just pawns for a completely different objective, much like the Occupy movement).

Partly written by David S. Goyer of The Dark Knight fame, Black Ops II tells a fairly compelling story regarding families and revenge that spans across two Cold Wars. However the campaign does suffer at several points due to some questionable plot points and an over-reliance on action movie clichés. The main gripe I had with the story was with the inattention to continuity. While the last Black Ops hinted that Mason, Hudson and Weaver were being hunted by the CIA for going rogue, Black Ops II shows Mason and Hudson happily working with the same organisation that tried to kill them. In addition to that, there is no mention of Weaver or whatever happened to him. Furthermore, within the continuity of the game itself without considering other games within the universe, there is also a distinct lack of explanation of where Alex Mason has been for thirty years if players chose not to kill him in a particular mission. While it does make sense to withhold the fact that he survived that encounter for a stronger effect during the reveal, the writers should have at least explained during that scene or in another post-credits scene what he had been doing up to that moment. Nor is there a clear explanation as to how Mason, Woods and Zhao survive their time in the Afghan desert following their betrayal. 

Overall, the plot rests on shaky propositions at various points in the game but that can be forgiven since most books, movies and games require an extremely specific series of events for the plot to progress. However, there are a few points that I wanted to raise as they kept nagging at me as I played through the game. 

First of all, there was no explanation as to how Menendez built up such a sizeable fortune to be able to afford secret manufacturing facilities, the ability to purchase schematics for what should be classified military material and managing to build up an army that can basically take on the Chinese and Americans without any sign of exhaustion. I know that for convenience sake, the writers just made Menendez a billionaire/trillionaire but it'd be nice if they provided some explanation to his wealth. Furthermore, at no point does the game actually explain how the Celerium device works. Is it a supercomputer capable of hacking military networks? Is it a hard drive that contains a virus capable of infecting the system? The closest we get to an explanation is the scientician that claims that is has more processing power than the combined power of the US military network. Then again, at various points of the game, it is referenced as the Celerium worm. How does a worm have processing power? Are they the same thing or are they different components? I must say, I'm terribly confused about the whole thing. 

Third of all, there's the issue of Chloe "Karma" Lynch being the only person in a world of approximately 7 billion people (a rough estimation of the global population in 2025) that knows how to stop the Celerium device/worm. Sure, it's to make the situation more tense and place an emphasis on the possibility of multiple endings based on the player's decisions and actions throughout the game, but still, it's a little far-fetched. I'm probably being pedantic with this query but what was with Mullah Rahmaan, the leader of the Mujahideen forces, being secretly allied with Menendez? It does help to make Menendez seem more influential but realistically, an Afghan freedom fighter like Mullah Rahmaan would probably not ally with a communist sympathiser like Menendez considering the communists put Afghanistan in that whole mess to begin with. Lastly, I'd like to point out that the protagonists of the game have got to be the worst operatives in the history of special operations. If they don't get their cover blown by walking into traps, they run into situations gun blazing when they could easily sidestep the enemy or take them out slowly and methodically. Then, there's the glaring example of Woods and Mason, two highly trained and highly experienced operators, handing their prisoner a pistol (with magazine removed to taunt him) without doing a brass check to see if there was one more round in the chamber. Needless to say, it comes back to bite them in the arse, rightly so in fact. 

If disbelief is suspended however, Black Ops II gives a fairly compelling story, possibly the best in the series so far (which isn't saying much though). The characters, although representing the stereotypical action hero badasses on the American side and representing the typical maniacal villain that has serious issues with dealing with grief, are very well fleshed-out and represent a major step forward for Call of Duty. The voice acting, however, is more of a hit and miss. To be applauded are Kamar de los Reyes as Raul Menendez and James C. Burns as Frank Woods who totally deserve recognition for their brilliant work in bringing their characters to life. Rich McDonald, Michael Rooker and Tony Todd were neither excellent nor terrible as they brought fairly standard performances as Commander David Mason, Mike Harper and Admiral Tommy Briggs respectively. On the other hand, Sam Worthington as Alex Mason and Michael Keaton as Jason Hudson gave substandard performances for actors of their calibre. Worthington sounded like he honestly couldn't be bothered about the whole thing and didn't even try to disguise his broad Australian accent for what is by all accounts an American character. The change in voice actor from Ed Harris to Michael Keaton was a step-down in my opinion since Hudson sounded and acted a lot younger than he was in the previous game. Furthermore, in moments of intense emotional narrative, Keaton came across as over-acting or under-acting, failing to deliver the subtlety or strength required in the particular situation. 

Gameplay

Despite my general loathing of the Call of Duty series from Modern Warfare 2 onwards, I'd be hard-pressed to deny that the gameplay has always been fantastic. All the games in the series feel like an interactive action movie, reminiscent of most of Michael Bay's works. Black Ops II is no different with its excessive explosions, frantic firefights and series-standard setpieces. As usual, the controls are tight and intuitive, letting gamers jump straight into the battle with no need for tutorials or reading the manual. Most other elements of the gameplay are also reminiscent of previous Call of Duty games, with the guns sounding just a little too similar to each other, copy and paste jobs of a lot of weapons and scenery, recoil being virtually non-existent and the same basic variety of missions. There are some new takes on old elements like the inclusion of drones as a replacement of airstrikes, artillery and tanks which do add to the fun of the game. 

However, there are some new features in the form of a load-out screen, branching storylines and the brand-spanking new Strikeforce mode. Now, I'm going to be honest, I love load-out screens. Especially when I'm allowed to customise my weapons before going on a mission. It makes me feel more like an individual, in that I can create my own version of a weapon and play the game my way. While Black Ops II does allow you to customise your weapons and perks, unfortunately, the gameplay forces you to engage enemies head-on, which sort of kills the point of giving you the choice of a stealth-optimised load-out. Arguably, there are some missions that feature stealth but these are few and far in between and really, there's no freedom for players to get through a mission on their terms. On the topic of freedom, a welcome change to the series is the introduction of branching storylines which does make the game feel less like a corridor duck shoot and really give the player a sense that whatever they do has an impact on the game. Unfortunately though, the freedom the game gives you only comes along once in a while and only major points in the game have a tangible effect on the outcome of the game. The writers and developers did write and program in minor events that can be changed but these have no real effect other than maybe a trophy/achievement or two. While I do welcome the inclusion of branching storylines as a means of providing a sense of freedom and choice to the gamer, the effect is diluted by the fact that the rest of the game plays out almost exactly the same. In my opinion, a better way to incorporate choice into a game would be a holistic approach where every little thing creates a ripple effect that changes the environment as you go along. For reference, I'm talking about a system implementing freedom and choice similar to the one used by Deus Ex: Human Revolution. 

On the other side of the spectrum, Strikeforce mode is a very unwelcome addition to the series due to how shockingly bad the controls and friendly AI are. On the harder difficulties, I literally could not beat  the missions without jumping in and taking over one of the soldiers or drones as they would stand around and get shot instead of doing anything useful when ordering them to cover an area or capture an objective. Couple that with the fact that the controls when in the Overwatch screen (RTS) are really counter-intuitive and barely covered in the tutorial section, Strikeforce mode comes across as a needlessly tacked on feature so the marketing department could claim that the game is innovative. Yes, Treyarch should be applauded for their decision to branch the series out and add a new element of gameplay but when it's implemented as terribly as Strikeforce mode is, they should have left it out or taken the time out to fix it.

Keeping on the topic of bad things in the game, the enemy AI in Black Ops II is ridiculously simplistic with enemy combatants standing out in the open or strafing rather than finding cover. Ratcheting the difficulty up does little to alleviate the simplicity of the AI as the harder difficulties only feature the same AI albeit with much better aim. At one point in the game, I saw one of the Yemeni security forces shooting at and killing his teammate who I was attempting to melee. While it was hilarious at the time, it is symptomatic of the poor artificial intelligence programmed into the game. Friendly AI is slightly better in that they actually attempt to take cover but they spend most of their time missing targets, leaving you the burden of killing hundreds of unimportant and trivial henchmen in your quest to bring down Raul Menendez. Then, there's the vehicles sections which I thought were poorly thought-out, poorly handled and ultimately a gimmick. The horse-riding section wasn't too shabby but the lack of clear borders meant I kept running out of the battlefield and dying, the driving section in Pakistan was such a confusing mess that I didn't even know where I was going and how I actually finished the mission and finally, the flying section was almost impossible because the controls were so heavy that running into buildings became a normal occurrence and the borders were once again undefined, leading to a lot of unnecessary death apparently caused by leaving the combat zone.

Graphics

Um, yeah, graphics. They're nice, I guess? Lots of big and important sites tell me that Black Ops II runs at 60 frames per second and apparently that's very good. Honestly though, I don't get the current obsession that gamers have with graphics. What difference does it make if it were running at 48 frames per second or 30 frames per second? Sure, the rendering won't be as smooth and the visuals might be less defined but what makes a game isn't just the graphics, it's a combination of narrative, plot, gameplay etc. That said though, Black Ops II does look quite good, my only complaint being that it feels very been there, done that because of a lot of re-used textures and designs literally copy-pasted from the previous Black Ops. According to a quick internet-search, it's because they've been using updated versions of basically the same engine since Call of Duty 2. That's some mighty poor effort. Yes, using the same engine has let them master the game and gain that awe-inspiring 60 fps, but as a muti-billion dollar franchise, don't you think some of that money could be used to really innovate and maybe build a new engine? Or at least conduct massive update and improvement program?

Another thing that did irk me, graphics-wise was the horse animation in the Afghanistan mission where my horse would, on occasion, disappear into the ground or be magically floating a few centimetres from the ground. It's probably because the horse was clipped to a certain height and the developers forgot to compensate for the rugged terrain. I mean, it's a guaranteed billion-dollar game, take some time out to fix the little things. Continuing with little things, in the very first mission, when I have Woods leaning on me, I realised when I started shaking my right analog stick a lot, that Woods didn't actually have a body, he was just a torso and a head. Look, I know this is pedanticism, but couldn't the guys at Treyarch invest just that little bit of time just to build a full body. I mean sure, it's extra work but  if you're going to copy-paste stuff in, maybe put in some effort elsewhere. 

Although I am no fan of the electronic music genre, I do quite like the Black Ops II soundtrack because it is just such a good score as well as being incredibly well-suited to the setting and gameplay. Jack Wall demonstrates his musical genius as usual and Trent Reznor does a stellar job composing the main theme as well. The excellent blend of fast-paced action and emotionality reflected in the score really accentuate the experience of playing the game and I recommend people who don't even want to play the game to give it a listen.

Conclusion:

Black Ops II is Call of Duty at its absolute best and worst. While it takes steps to innovate and invigorate the stale gameplay through numerous good and bad additions, it is ultimately the same action-movie thrillride we've all come to expect. A case of one step forward and two steps back. 

Pros:

Interesting plot.

Branching storylines.

Fantastic voice-acting by James C. Burns and Kamar de los Reyes.

Excellent gameplay.

Brilliant music.

An attempt to improve the series.

Cons:

Many plotholes caused by incompetent protagonists.

Lacklustre voice-acting by everyone else.

Strikeforce mode.

Boring old cliches and action-movie stalwarts.

Lack of effort by the developers exemplified by the copy and paste of way too many things from weapons to textures.

Terrible AI.

Campaign Score = 35/50

Gripes Regarding Social Media

For anyone that actually reads my crappy content on a regular basis, I apologise for not updating the blog in a while. I've been working on my Black Ops II review and that will be out when I finish editing the campaign portion of the review. For first-time readers, welcome and leave while you still can. Really, there's nothing of value here.

Today, as a placeholder for any actual content, I'd like to go on a long-winded rant on social media. While I understand that social media and sharing your life on the internet has become ingrained within the global consciousness, I cannot comprehend how people act on social media. While I do believe that people should be able to do as they please, it does not mean that I condone things that they do. Sure, some people may call me hypocritical but I just like to think of it as real freedom. Where I let people express their freedom to do whatever they want within the limits of the law while I express my freedom of speech by highlighting my disagreement about it.

Maybe I'm being dramatic but I really hate people who overshare. People that update their statuses constantly, or post a picture of themselves every few hours or even check in wherever they are. While it is nice to share your life with other people, there is such a thing as sharing too much. I do not need to know that you were just in the toilet and had a stellar dump. I do not need to know that you went to some random place to have dinner. I do not need to see you relaxing on a beach in some island paradise. Okay, I lied about that last part, that's actually kind of cool.

The problem I see with some people is that they are narcissistic and basically bragging about how awesome their lives are. It makes me feel bad about my own boring existence and does leave me with a distinct sense of envy. In this case, I will recognise that it is my own fault for giving a damn about someone else's highlight reel. Yet at the same time, there is this sense that some people are doing it to stroke their own ego. Great. Cool. You're having drinks at a trendy nightclub. Wow, you're so hip and cool. Then, their friends who were there or wished they were there will swoop in, sing praises and comment at how great everything was. If you want to stroke your ego so badly, find a room and just keep it to yourself. Also, please clean up after yourself afterwards. Look, I understand that people may have legitimately enjoyed something they share and that's fine. However, there are people out there (I'm embarrassed to admit I am friends with some people like this) who literally talk about how EVERYTHING they have done/experienced/went to was awesome. That's great for them but they don't have to share everything. Then, there's the subset of the attention-seekers who post something vague as their status obviously so that someone will ask them what's wrong and they have someone to complain to. If you have a problem, feel free to talk about it, don't be coy and try to get people to pay attention to you.

Alright, I'm a bit jealous because of how cool all the things they do seem and maybe I'm just an intensely private person, I'm willing to concede that point for the last argument. But not for this one. The second problem I see with social media is security and privacy. As in people who don't alter their privacy settings and ensure that their whereabouts, personal details and parts of their life that they choose to share on the internet is open to random strangers. Sure, not everyone is a crazy stalker or really creepy internet pervert but it doesn't hurt to tone it down a notch. It's especially bad for someone who has lax privacy settings and likes to share a lot. Social media is a fantastic intelligence-gathering tool when used against these people. Within a few clicks of a button, I can learn where a particular person lives, who their significant others are and possibly even where they've been if they're prone to checking in to every location they go to. I mean, come on, you're basically doing a stalker's job for them! On the privacy note, I really don't need to know that Person A just had the best bowel motion ever. It's just disgusting. Also, as someone who is intensely private, I extremely dislike it when friends tag me in photographs or events. I just don't like the idea that someone I may not know can see me or know what I've done.

Another gripe I have regarding social media is the discussion of controversial topics such as politics or religion and how it becomes a full-blown flame war. Granted, this happens in real life when people get together to talk politics or religion but I personally believe it's far worse on the internet because of the lack of actual physical contact which I feel possibly makes people more brazen and less likely to be polite about their views. Admittedly, not all discussions become heated and not all people will be empowered by the relative anonymity provided by being behind a computer on the internet. But think of all the (relative) freedom you have when discussing the most controversial topics. I'm sure you have seen some pretty antagonistic stuff coming in the form of a tweet or a YouTube video or a YouTube comment. To use the pejorative so popular on the internet, keyboard warriors are protected by the sense of anonymity afforded by the internet, allowing them to push boundaries and be pretty terrible human beings without the fear of physical retribution or punishment.

Sparknotes version: I dislike social media mostly because people that dominate social media are really overbearing narcissists, people that don't understand the concept of boundaries and god-damned keyboard warriors. Or, I'm just an opinionated bastard who hates most things anyway. Either way, that's my take on things.

Pitch Perfect Review

Considering the overwhelming video game content in the last few posts, I thought I'd switch it up a little by doing a movie review. Today, I'll be reviewing the musical comedy Pitch Perfect directed by Jason Moore, written by Kay Cannon and starring an ensemble cast which includes Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson, Skylar Astin, Brittany Snow, Anna Camp, Hana Mae Lee, Ester Dean, Ben Platt and Adam Devine. Honestly, I went into the movie expecting it to be a movie version of the horrible hit TV series Glee but I was pleasantly surprised. Instead of being a cheap Glee rip-off, Pitch Perfect is actually a fantastic movie featuring brilliant a cappella renditions of songs performed by an extremely talented cast.

The plot follows Barden University freshman Beca (Anna Kendrick) and her experiences with her cohorts in the all-female a capella group, the Barden Bellas, as they compete with their rivals, the Barden Treble-Makers, to win the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella (ICCA). Along the way, strong friendships and relationships are formed as the Bellas stumble from one hilarious situation to the next. With each outrageous situation comes gems of dialogue like “Could you please get your head out of your ass? It's not a hat,” or "You guys are gonna get pitch-slapped so hard, your man boobs are gonna concave," which help to make Pitch Perfect one of my favourite movies of 2012. What makes the movie great is that it resorts to a wide range of comedy from outrageous physical situations to subtle jokes to brick jokes. Each scene is punctuated by a bucketload of laughs with the exception of one or two scenes that are played straight, making this a brilliant piece of comedic filmmaking.

While the writer, Kay Cannon, and director, Jason Moore, deserve a lot of credit for making a great film, praises must also be sung (see what I did there?) for the cast of Pitch Perfect. Anna Kendrick is fantastically subtle as Beca, bringing a lot of warmth to the character as well as being able to deadpan and deliver snarks coolly. Rebel Wilson deserves a huge mention because she is frankly brilliant as Fat Amy, an outrageous Australian who calls herself Fat Amy so "twig bitches don't call her that behind her back," and is also the "best singer in Tasmania ... with teeth." Skylar Astin is also great as the inexplicably nice guy Jesse and delivers great musical performances throughout the film. Brittany Snow also deserves a mention because she is just great as the extremely quirky yet very amiable Chloe. Honestly though, the whole cast is brilliant and each performer excelled in their role, making their characters believable and extremely likeable. However, special mention should be made to John Micheal Higgins and Elizabeth Banks for their brief but side-splittingly funny appearances as the commentators for the ICCAs, delivering more gems like "This number is like an elephant dart to the public's face."

The single most fantastic thing about this film though, is the music. From the great a cappella rendition of the Universal Studios introduction to the improvised musical battle of the riff-offs to the polished performances of the various groups during the ICCAs, Pitch Perfect features awesomely rearranged songs that sound a lot better than their originals, which isn't hard for some songs like Just the Way You Are or Party in the U.S.A, but is quite an achievement for great songs like Since U Been Gone and Don't You (Forget About Me). The remixes produced by Beca on her MacBook (rather obvious product placement, by the way) are also great pieces despite being played for literally 30 seconds.

I do have a few gripes with the movie though. Characters-wise, I'm unsure as to why Beca's dad and Luke, the station manager are actually in the movie. Beca's dad does serve to advance the plot a little but he's not really that important or funny or particularly memorable. Luke is put forward early on in the movie as a possible competitor with Jesse for Beca's affections but just suddenly disappears near the middle of the movie. My other gripes are less with continuity and character development and more with music. One complaint is that some of the music is not long enough such as Chloe and Beca's rendition of Titanium or Beca's remixes because they are just plain awesome. Additionally, I felt that the movie could have showed other groups' performances during the ICCAs to make the film feel more realistic and also to showcase more awesome a cappella songs.

Score = 9/10