Call of Duty: Black Ops 4

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Arachnid1
The reveal event just ended. Multiplayer is boots on the ground with a new weapons building system and unique operators with different abilities, zombies is going to launch with three maps (about time they didn't skimp on this), and they announced Blackout which is a battle royal mode (lol) bringing back all the older characters, streaks, and abilities from previous games and zombie iterations in a map that's apparently over 1500 times bigger than Nuketown and includes land/sea/air vehicles.

They're actually launching this iteration with a ton of content. It looks like they actually put in effort. IDK if its enough to buy it (I'm usually onboard with Treyarch games), but so far so good. Also the PC version is launching on Blizzards Battlenet. I don't really use that but it's apparently a good thing.

ooyjaVdt-jA

GA2zR15nmHk

ffvg7cR68-Q

TktjCqG4p7Y

BackFire
Probably won't play this, looks meh.

That said, I will be following it to see how popular the battle royale mode ends up being. Will be interesting to see if it can dethrone pubg or Fortnight.

BruceSkywalker
looks pretty good.. just wanna kill people lol

Nemesis X
So why do they call this Black Ops 4? The number would imply a story following the events of the previous game and the first three Black Ops definitely had campaign stories. Why didn't this get called Open Field Warfare instead if it's going the battle royale route?

Arachnid1
Hey guys, you may want to hold off for CoD 2019. A huge chunk of the OG Infinity Ward members have transferred back to IW from Respawn, which means the MW2 team is back together. On top of that, the same guy who's leaked prior CoDs has already leaked that IW is working on Modern Warfare 4. The OG IW team working on a completely modern game? Sign me up.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
So why do they call this Black Ops 4? The number would imply a story following the events of the previous game and the first three Black Ops definitely had campaign stories. Why didn't this get called Open Field Warfare instead if it's going the battle royale route? Yeah it doesn't make sense outside of reusing the operators for multiplayer. They should have just started something new and let BO be its own trilogy. I feel like they're riding pretty heavily off the name since the BO games were always good.

Tzeentch
How come I'm not allowed to have a Call of Duty game that's set in a near-future where technology has allowed the US to initiate a full-scale invasion of Hell?

The sequel could be about Hell's counter-offensive in major cities across the world and your campaign to hop from war zone to war zone shutting down their warp gates.

BackFire
Originally posted by Arachnid1
Hey guys, you may want to hold off for CoD 2019. A huge chunk of the OG Infinity Ward members have transferred back to IW from Respawn, which means the MW2 team is back together. On top of that, the same guy who's leaked prior CoDs has already leaked that IW is working on Modern Warfare 4. The OG IW team working on a completely modern game? Sign me up.

Wow. That's very cool. Hopefully they don't forgo a campaign as well, I love the campaigns in MW 1 and 2.

Impediment

Arachnid1
Agreed. This is already the most fun I've had in a CoD game since MW2. Treyarch knocked it out of the park, and trading the single player for blackout, two extra zombies maps, and more multiplayer maps than usual was well worth it IMO. Fking incredible.

On the flip side, this years Battlefield looks to be the first entry I'll skip since I started playing at Bad Company 1. It's unreal. I never thought there would be a year I prefered CoD to BF.

BackFire
I wish I had more interest in battle royale games, seems the one here is very good.

Trocity
Originally posted by Arachnid1
Agreed. This is already the most fun I've had in a CoD game since MW2. Treyarch knocked it out of the park, and trading the single player for blackout, two extra zombies maps, and more multiplayer maps than usual was well worth it IMO. Fking incredible.

On the flip side, this years Battlefield looks to be the first entry I'll skip since I started playing at Bad Company 1. It's unreal. I never thought there would be a year I prefered CoD to BF.

Agreed with everything you said, including Battlefield. I've always been a Battlefield guy, and I'm skipping on this one and am super glad I got BOps4.

This game is awesome.

BruceSkywalker
been watching youtube vids of this, upon further review im gonna pass

Tzeentch
- open up a random twitch stream of the game to check it out
- watch a guy with a silenced SMG sprint around the map in a circle shooting people in the back for about three minutes
-close the stream

I just can't do it dude. I dumped so many hundreds of hours into CoD between MW1, Black Ops and MW2 that I just can't look at this derivative gameplay and feel anything other then weariness.

Kazenji
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
been watching youtube vids of this, upon further review im gonna pass

Same here

i'm over CoD in general.

Smasandian
I find it a bit strange that people criticize other companies for ****ing over consumers but have no problem with Activision doing the same with this version of Call of Duty.

Oh it's OK to remove a huge portion of the game for a few more maps and 1 mode.

Arachnid1
Originally posted by Smasandian
I find it a bit strange that people criticize other companies for ****ing over consumers but have no problem with Activision doing the same with this version of Call of Duty.

Oh it's OK to remove a huge portion of the game for a few more maps and 1 mode. You definitely have every right to be peeved about the lack of single player, but that doesn't apply to everyone man.

IMO the CoD single player has almost always been abysmal and wasted resources that would be better put to use in multiplayer options. As a trade off, I got 15 PvP maps instead of WW2's 10, the best Battle Royal mode to date, and three zombies maps at launch as opposed to the usual single. IMO we came out of this way ahead, and they made the right choice. People who are angry about the lack of single player act like we got cheated with less content than usual, when that's not true. The content we did get added way more longevity to the game.

Smasandian
Ok, I do not agree at the slightest when its competitor is releasing a single player campaign, it's regular modes, and added battle royale for the same price.

Do you honestly believe Activision decided to scrap SP for its Battle Royale mode? Sure ****ing chance. This game started in development in 2015 (most likely?) while battle royale didn't become uber popular until late last year. There is no ****ing way Blackout was a thought in Activision's mind until early this year. So.....I take it's not too difficult to shoehorn a Battle Royale mode into an existant multiplayer structure.

In the end, 5 more maps in MP, a shoehorned mode (even if its good) and 2 more shitty zombie maps does not equal the same type of content SP offers. Especially when other games are offering more content for same price.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Smasandian
I find it a bit strange that people criticize other companies for ****ing over consumers but have no problem with Activision doing the same with this version of Call of Duty.

Oh it's OK to remove a huge portion of the game for a few more maps and 1 mode. http://i64.tinypic.com/1zgcf29.png

Smasandian
I didn't choose this. I loved COD SP. It's on the reasons why I used to buy it.

Jmanghan
Originally posted by Arachnid1
You definitely have every right to be peeved about the lack of single player, but that doesn't apply to everyone man.

IMO the CoD single player has almost always been abysmal and wasted resources that would be better put to use in multiplayer options. As a trade off, I got 15 PvP maps instead of WW2's 10, the best Battle Royal mode to date, and three zombies maps at launch as opposed to the usual single. IMO we came out of this way ahead, and they made the right choice. People who are angry about the lack of single player act like we got cheated with less content than usual, when that's not true. The content we did get added way more longevity to the game. Thats bull, modern warfare had excellent campaigns, and CoD Classic had a pretty awesome campaign as well.

Smasandian
I agree. I think only Ghosts and Black Ops 3 have been bad. Advanced Warfare is OK but others have been fun.

The pinnacle is Modern Warfare 1 and 2. Blacks Ops 1 and 2 have been good as well. The original three are fantastic. Infinite Warfare was good as well.

Arachnid1
Originally posted by Jmanghan
Thats bull, modern warfare had excellent campaigns, and CoD Classic had a pretty awesome campaign as well. Come the fuk on lol, CoD single player is and always has been shit. Sometimes they have ok (maybe even good) stories, but that doesn't make a game. They are corridor shooters with basic shooting gallery components, and they have never been the main draw for this series. If that's your idea of "excellent" single player, legit lol. The last time I enjoyed that shit was when I was a 15 year old watching Ghost and Roach get turned into a bonfire.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Ok, I do not agree at the slightest when its competitor is releasing a single player campaign, it's regular modes, and added battle royale for the same price.

Do you honestly believe Activision decided to scrap SP for its Battle Royale mode? Sure ****ing chance. This game started in development in 2015 (most likely?) while battle royale didn't become uber popular until late last year. There is no ****ing way Blackout was a thought in Activision's mind until early this year. So.....I take it's not too difficult to shoehorn a Battle Royale mode into an existant multiplayer structure.

In the end, 5 more maps in MP, a shoehorned mode (even if its good) and 2 more shitty zombie maps does not equal the same type of content SP offers. Especially when other games are offering more content for same price. I'm not comparing CoD to BF. I'm talking strictly in comparison with its prior entries, which almost always have boring campaigns stocked full of corridor shooting galleries and over the top, eye rolling set pieces. This game far out does them in multiplayer and zombies (which is the best fking thing CoD has ever had to offer, so I also disagree with your '2 more shitty zombies maps' comment too).

Treyarch usually has a three year development cycle which ideally gives them a year for each of the three CoD aspects they work on (zombies, multiplayer, single player; Neither of us are developers, so I'm not going to act like I know how much time or resources are devoted to each, but neither do you). Maybe they just work on campaign and shoehorn it in the last year of development? With how trash the single player usually is, I wouldn't be surprised. Assuming it took them the same amount of time to make the phenomenal Blackout mode as it would a shit campaign makes it a pretty solid trade off. The developers agreed, which led to their choice to cut it.

BTW, as far as it's 'competitor' goes, BF has had shit campaigns for some time too. Even worse than CoDs, in fact. I'd trade BF1s stupid war stories or BF4s campaign for more multiplayer content in a heartbeat.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.