As an objective writer, I have to say one thing about the new trailer for “Call of Duty: Black Ops 2″:
It looks pretty amazing.
The trailer appears to show, among other things, future special forces operatives fighting drones in Los Angeles. It’s very Terminator-esque, and a nice break from the “Kill Russians!” theme of we’ve seen in recent video games that seem to have been made by people who don’t realize the Cold War ended more than two decades ago. (I’m looking at you, “Bad Company,” “Ace Combat: Assault Horizon” and well, “Call of Duty.”)
Being someone who plays games for their single-player than multi-player modes, I haven’t really been excited about a Call of Duty game since the series was still set in World War II and I played Call of Duty 2’s demo at the Circuit City in Newport Beach. I thought that game, as well as original “Call of Duty and its “United Offensive” expansion pack for the PC did a great job of allowing players to imagine the chaos of a World War 2 battle from American, British and Russian perspectives.
I have yet to even get around to playing “Call of Duty 3″ or “World at War. Regarding the games set in the modern era, I think “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare” deserves much of its praise whereas the storyline for “Modern Warfare 2″ didn’t make any sense to me and Black Ops was OK, except I thought the twist at the end was pretty ridiculous. I’ll probably eventually find time to try “Modern Warfare 3″
I know judging recent Call of Duty games for single-player is kind of missing the point, but I don’t have enough time to play multi-player to compete with all the players who take it seriously.
I’m sure Black Ops 2 will continue to emphasize multiplayer, since that’s what the games biggest fans like most. But giving the game a drastically different setting from its predecessors should allow some opportunities for gameplay innovations and wild new weapons. The futuristic setting should give the developers an incentive to be creative, as opposed to “realistic,” and I’m all for it.