-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Polygon: Black Ops IIII might not have a SP campaign [UPDATE: Rumor: Battle Royale mode by Raven]
- Thread starter KoolAid
- Start date
Me too, but I don't like to admit it on the internet. BLOPS III campaign is one of those games that gamers in general love to hate.
Word. Plus most people who hate it probably did not try coop which elevates the experience.
Imagine if this is all bullshit and at the community event we get a SP reveal trailer along with the MP
This is the dumbest shit I've read today congrats. Doesn't matter what treyarch does it will still sell 20-30 million copies.
like i care? creatively they are dead. who gives a shit what they sell as far as i am concerned
I know right? lol what a terrible comment so what if they sell alot what does have to do with quality
One campaign you guys didn't like and another game you haven't heard jack shit about and treyarchs creativity is dead ?
Your level of hyperbole is LMFAOOOOOO
They've made one SP that wasn't received well and they are creatively dead?
Okay.
Since I play for the campaign yes I dont care about this cod
they made a campaign that was absolute garbage tier and this installment has no identity as far as we know.
Why does everything on the internet have to be either, "zoommggwtfbbq GOAT!!!!!!!!" or "absolute garbage-tier, bargain bin fodder piece of fucking shit game!!!!!"...?
Why do gamers have to be so binary and hyperbolic?
It's the tech focus. Technology-enabled communication strips reciprocal data and fosters binary thought patterns.
It was a different take but it was still a very well produced campaign with great set pieces and sensation structure. Just because the story took a back seat obviously means Treyarch is dead...uh okay lmao.
Because most gamers lack critical thinking skills. It's that simple.
Should the title be changed? I heard the new rumor is that they're going Overwatch instead of SP. The BR mode isn't even a mode, it's pretty much a separate game that has nothing to do with Black Ops.
Rumors about the Overwatch similarities also say they're backpedaling heavily and removing Overwatch-like elements.
Yeah, here's the rumor
This game is sounding like a mess. Like they're trying to chase every popular current gaming trend and falling on their face in the process. Amazing since at one point Treyarch were even more consistent than Infinite Ward.
Its got nothing to do with critical thinking skills wtf lol. Its easy to type on the internet. Its that simple. Its easy to exaggerate and post kneejerk reactions without thinking about it. Nothing more to it.
Yeah let's hood off on the shit comments until we at least get a look at the game.
They are afriad that the mainstream American teenage gamers won't be smart enoigh or educated enough to uderstand the number IV.
Le's be honest here, they are pretty stupid.
There is no way that could ever be done . At the end of the day Businesses have to make money and appeal to an audience Playtesting is one of the best ways to get immediate feedback.Sacrificing marketbility for artistic merits constantly is a good way for a company to commit financial suicide. In the end sales is all that matters to keep the lights on
They need to just let them work on it for another year and give us MW2R this year, its what most people want instead anyway isn't it? I know I do.
Nah,
They went with IIII because it keeps the logo which apparently will be all the game actually has to identify it as a Black Ops.
I'm interested in what a CoD Battle Royale would look like. I'm looking forward to some footage.
CoD Online ready has a BR mode which is also developed by Raven, I'd assume it will be similar
We can always reaccess comments when we see it. But if these rumors are true then it absolutely seems like they're chasing. Which is very odd given that this is a franchise that basically spent a decade being chased by others. Rather than doing their own thing it now seems like Treyarch at least is basically attempting to imitate a bunch of other popular multiplayer modes.
They knew everyone was expecting BL4CK OPS and they wanted to take an even dumber route
Why are you acting like i have to tone down my viewpoint? I thought the campaign was personally one of the worst first person shooter campaigns i had ever played up to that point and i still feel like the game itself was an absolute waste of money for 60 dollars for those of us who care nothing for multipayer. Of course i'm going to say its garbage. Bullet sponge robot enemies, completely unintelligible story line, and bizarre focus on unsuitable 4 person co op.
I don't know what else you'd like me to say.
Atleast infinite warfare was fun and had some variety(although the repetitive mission structure in the "select a mission" type of scenario was a bit grating.) I don't understand why you think i feel everything is one extreme or the other. I'm only talking about BO3 here.
I think it would be interesting if they did half-way advanced movement. No jetpacks, but keep the wallrunning (perhaps to a slightly lesser degree), sliding, and increased climbing/mantling capabilities. Sort of like Brink (but obviously not Brink).
It'd let them maintain a fairly fluid movement system without having to go futuristic, and without hampering map design.
Infinite Warfare had a multiplayer playlist similar to what I described, but it was slightly hampered by maps that were primarily designed for jetpacks, and some damage changes (namely really strong headshots) that kind of freaked out the balance a bit. It was pretty cool though. Made certain areas of the map more advantageous if you could manage to reach them, and let you set up more surprising flanks using wall running, since it wasn't as simple as boosting up to a high wall and having at it. Movement took more thought and skill, without feeling clunky.
Great mode to grind out headshot challenges too :D
It'd let them maintain a fairly fluid movement system without having to go futuristic, and without hampering map design.
Infinite Warfare had a multiplayer playlist similar to what I described, but it was slightly hampered by maps that were primarily designed for jetpacks, and some damage changes (namely really strong headshots) that kind of freaked out the balance a bit. It was pretty cool though. Made certain areas of the map more advantageous if you could manage to reach them, and let you set up more surprising flanks using wall running, since it wasn't as simple as boosting up to a high wall and having at it. Movement took more thought and skill, without feeling clunky.
Great mode to grind out headshot challenges too :D
Oh come on. You can't deny that a lot of the criticisms toward it are completely valid.
They were way too subtle with the whole thing. 99.99% of people, including me, finished the game completely dumbfounded and not understanding any of what they just spent 5-8 hours playing. That's not very good.
It wasn't until I watched a youtube video explaining the story that I actually appreciated it, but the other hundreds of thousands of people will probably never find out what the campaign was really about.
Plus there's the whole "it wasn't tied to the past two Black Ops at all outside of one throwaway line about Menendez" thing.
Black Ops II is my absolute favorite COD campaign, I was so excited to see Treyarch bounce back with IIII after the disappointment of III, and then they go and axe the campaign. This sucks so fucking hard.
You see now, the bolded is far more useful and descriptive as a criticism of the game than simply saying "it was shit". The bolded here at least speaks to your perception of the game's various failings, while leaving room to appreciate some of the ways in which the game endears itself.
The above is more explanatory of your viewpoint and useful to a discussion that using simple hyperbolic one-liners.
I'm not denying any of the games' flaws. I just was able to enjoy the campaign in spite of those (although I really didn't find the narrative to be as offensive as it seemed to be to you). Whilst I too didn't catch the subtle subplot the first time around, realizing the twist the writers intended with it later on only made it more appealing to me. I just think it's hyperbolic and disingenuous to entirely dismiss the game's more redeeming qualities.
Last edited:
Didn't help that the characters had the charisma of a bag of potatoes. No real camaraderie. No Reznovs. No Admiral "Cocksucka" Briggs. Just candy wasting, weird phrase spouting, confusingly romantic (what was the deal with that CIA lady again?) blandness.
This is definitely the next biggest issue after the whole "it's just too confusing" thing. Hendricks was just so bland. None of Taylor's squad stood out either. Really odd after Treyarch had phenomenal characters in Black Ops I and II.
IMO, the problem with Black Ops III is not necessarily the mega-ruse story. It is the pacing and structure of the campaign, combined with writing that lacks the snap and sharpness of previous Black Ops games. Yes, he was just a co-writer, but David Goyer bought a lot of the same Goyeristic flair that he bought to the Nolan Batman movies, which he helped write around the same time. Goyer's absence hurt Black Ops III, IMO. The pacing and flow of the game are the problem. The waves of robots that grind the game into monotonous pulp. The dialogue being less... crisp just makes it more jarring. Black Ops 1 and 2 had such great dialogue. Black Ops 3 has "A frozen forest" and not much else. Here's the rub. Black Ops III is a lot of really neat ideas wrapped in a broken package. Maybe the game is structured the way it is because it had to be completely rewritten due to the original plot being deemed unacceptable by Activision?
The game's actual meaning is right there in that scene if you're looking for it. Black Ops III has problems, but it does cop more shit than it should, IMO. There's an unwillingness to examine these games in a light other than "How did it make me feel at the time." A game that was "disappointing" is forever disappointing.
The game's actual meaning is right there in that scene if you're looking for it. Black Ops III has problems, but it does cop more shit than it should, IMO. There's an unwillingness to examine these games in a light other than "How did it make me feel at the time." A game that was "disappointing" is forever disappointing.
I mean, if you want a good single player campaign it being better in coop is totally irrelevant to that.
I agree.
I do think people often let their disappointment with BLOPS III, coming off the back of BLOPS I and II (with III being such a huge departure in setting, gameplay and tone), cloud their judgement of the game.
Had BLOPS been a separate franchise or COD sub-franchise, I certainly think that gamers would have given it a fairer shake.
But then, I'm one of those of the opinion that COD: AW, BLOPS III and Infinite Warfare were done a grave injustice by forcing them to be part of the COD franchise. I would have much preferred them all to be new IP in an entirely separate parallel series... especially Infinite Warfare—which is like my favourite sci-fi FPS game since Killzone 2.
Infinity Ward didn't want Modern Warfare to be part of the CoD series, either. But the brand is everything to Activision. After Modern Warfare 2, they made the CALL OF DUTY bigger and bigger and the SERIES NAME smaller and smaller. On one hand I think people are dumb for hating games just because of the brand on the box. But it does do the games a disservice. Something like the Metro series would be seen in a completely different light if they were called Call of Duty: Metro 2033/Last Light/Exodus.
Children and man-children make up most the audience.
The whole thread boils down to "we don't really know".
Reveal next month.