Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 (In the future)

[max power 21]

Ok... it seems they are trying to change a thing or two:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/122/1224070p1.html

After the fourth time the author said something like 'frighteningly realistic' or 'startlingly grounded in real life', I stopped reading. It seems like I was about 1/4 the way through the article. I hope that writer got a big, fat cheque.

[slatts 1978]

After the fourth time the author said something like 'frighteningly realistic' or 'startlingly grounded in real life', I stopped reading. It seems like I was about 1/4 the way through the article. I hope that writer got a big, fat cheque.

aye, a few brown envelopes were handed out that day

[Maio 293]

After the fourth time the author said something like 'frighteningly realistic' or 'startlingly grounded in real life', I stopped reading. It seems like I was about 1/4 the way through the article. I hope that writer got a big, fat cheque.

Heheh yeah, I payed no attention to that... just the part where he said the story would branch out. Re-playability in a COD game is something "new"... I still wont buy the game, but heck... The developers will at least get to do something new with the series... good for their mental health I say :)

[maturin 12]

Don't get your hopes up, my bet it's just autoaim shooting sequence same as snowbike or river boat in MW2.

Well I'm not going to play or buy the game, of course, it just looks like an interesting idea. As opposed to the stupid mechas and tiny gun drones that will make MP so hellish. Also, anyone notice hoe dated the graphics look?

[Flash Thunder 10]

There's a video on Gametrailers that's 4 minutes long of a developer just talking about ambient occlusion and how their rocks are going to have realistic sand in the crevasses of the rock. Then another video with Mark Lima saying that PC version will benefit from DX11... What a bunch of steaming shit. Okay Lima I'll believe you it will be just like all other CODs on PC, a port that can run on a laptop.

[slatts 1978]

woooow..they updated the texture of the rocks? im so gonna buy this game now!

[batto 17]

From article:

To enable a future where there's cause to have vast battlefields filled with explosions and the chaos of combat, Black Ops 2's campaign introduces another future threat to the world: cyber terrorism

Call me conspiracy theorist, but every new CoD seems like it's sponsored by US and made mainly for propaganda purposes. Same old crap game with new sh1t we should be afraid of or justifying current sh1t.

(

, payback?)

[GRS 10]

Right, that's why the badass guys are usually SAS right?

[maturin 12]

Propaganda? Then what do you call General Shepherd?

No, jingoistic Cold War nostalgia is embedded in American popular culture pretty deeply now. Not saying that this has nothing to do with propaganda, but mostly propaganda from the past. The role of the military in Hollywood is the real story.

[batto 17]

Right, that's why the badass guys are usually SAS right?

In the end your mates are immortal and you're killing sand-people or russians like imps in Doom and it's the always right.

@maturing: I'm talking about "cyber-terrorism" and "bad China".

Maybe I just hate CoD too much ...

Edited May 3, 2012 by batto

[Nicholas 5]

I only own 4 Call of Duty games. Call of Duty 1, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: World at War, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. I bought Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: World at War, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 only because friends had wanted me to. Call of Duty 1 was purchased thinking it may be like Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.

I do not have plans to ever buy a Call of Duty game again.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Nicholas

[roberthammer 582]

Call of Duty meets BF 2142 ? srsly? - automaticly skipping this COD and waiting for proper game (arma3) :P

Edited May 3, 2012 by RobertHammer

[metalcraze 290]

The horses were the only thing I liked about the trailer. It's probably inspired by the invasion of Afganistan. The Northern Alliance and Army special forces charged Taliban BMPs and Shilkas on horseback, under cover of airstrikes. It was on the way to take Mazar-e-Sharif. You can read about in some book called Horse Soldiers or something.

So eat crow, everyone.

Except here they are using horses probably because somebody stole keys even from toasters

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Needs more large burning objects flying over the player thus causing a gloved hand to be raised to the face.

[raptor90 1]

Goodbye COD series. The last game from this series which has even a sense was CODMW1

Since that... No comment.

[jacknorrisuk 146]

Ok... it seems they are trying to change a thing or two:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/122/1224070p1.html

I read this. It made me angry.

Have you ever read anything that reeks so badly of a fat payoff?? I don't have to explain to you guys how totally stupid it is saying that we will basically have AT-AT Walkers in LA in 10 years time...

I seriously doubt that even the author believes most of what he is saying. Maybe he has a gun pointed at his head. (an inaccurate, low-poly gun at that).

I think we should all register on IGN just so we can flame the comments with corrections.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:48 ----------

Needs more large burning objects flying over the player thus causing a gloved hand to be raised to the face.

Yes, I instantaneously remembered this exact same moment from the Battlefield 3 trailer.

[instagoat 133]

How fascinating. So they´re basically taking current ideas and concepts in development, and running them trough a "let´s make it look a bit like battletech" modificator? Walkers? Really?

Walkers are about the silliest concept as far as warfighting machines go. One could probably write massive articles just pointing out all the flaws and problems with such a design, against advantages (if there even are any?). Okay, the soldier tech may exist. Okay, the world setting may be realistic (we´re getting something similar with Arma 3. China is the next superpower, it has all the resources, and Arrowhead was already about precious minerals. Like Afghanistan, Nato didn´t invade there because of humanistic and ethical causes, but because of the existence of strategical resources incredibly important to current developments in the progressing digital age.), but on the whole it doesn´t really matter. MGSs setting wasn´t realistic or plausible, but it was tremendously enjoyable.

CoD stories prior to MW1 were WW2 hodgepodge. MW1 was good. After that, everything sort of took a nose dive into the Chuck Norris/Dolph Lundgren level action movie quality section, except with more explosions and even less plausible plot developments (on top of heroes adorned with impenetrable plot armour, everybody only dying when story and drama demanded it.) On top of that the fast paced shooter concept CoD has been exercising since MW1 is kind of growing old. Another shooter like that? Really?

Unless this really sticks out massively, I am just not gonna bother, the same way I didn´t bother with MW2, MW3 and Blackops. I´d rather replay HL1 and try to beat A:CWA´s campaigns again, tyvm.

tl;dr: realism really is a non-point if you can´t make a good game. Unless it´s the focus, it´s a bonus. Equipment realism in games specifically is kind of silly. Also they´re implementing walkers. If you care about realism, that should tell you a lot. I for one will stick with the (though irl pretty implausible) railfun tanks of A3. Much more realistic :>

[batto 17]

Walkers are about the silliest concept as far as warfighting machines go. One could probably write massive articles just pointing out all the flaws and problems with such a design, against advantages (if there even are any?).

I thought same in past, but my friend (who study cybernetics btw) enlightened me. The problem is that wheels (and parts holding it) can't take the pressure with large weights. Also wheels has problems on non-smooth terrain. But I've no idea how useful such small walkers could be.

[Opticalsnare 12]

I thought same in past, but my friend (who study cybernetics btw) enlightened me. The problem is that wheels (and parts holding it) can't take the pressure with large weights. Also wheels has problems on non-smooth terrain. But I've no idea how useful such small walkers could be.

What about Quarry trucks, they have wheels and weigh like 300tons and can carry like 200 tons... And what about off-road 4x4's which are designed to drive over rough terrain. Walkers are more sci-fi and belong to something in like HL2 or War of the Worlds, both of which are alien so it makes them ok.

Still COD again, nar not interested. Same shit differnt package.

[froggyluv 2130]

Mechs and pony riding to kill world evil...reminds me of the end of Time Bandits where Knights, Tanks and Cowboys show up in Hell to kill Evil (Devil like man) and his sidekick Benson the dog. Please look into this Treyarch!

[batto 17]

What about Quarry trucks, they have wheels and weigh like 300tons and can carry like 200 tons...

Yeah, exactly, they weight 100 tons. And they drive 5 km/h...

And what about off-road 4x4's which are designed to drive over rough terrain.

OK, I'm not sure about this one (I made this up because it seems natural). I think it's not as simple as you think. There may be terrain that is easier corssed with walker than wheels. Can't find good picture/example.

Walkers are more sci-fi and belong to something in like HL2 or War of the Worlds, both of which are alien so it makes them ok.

nope.jpg

Use common sense. Earth gravity is good for light sport cars, but for greater weight it's a problem. It can be solved only by making it more tough => heavier => more pressure on wheels => more tough => heavier => ... very heavy & slow in the end.

Walkers exploit gravity (look at how earthlings walk).

Take pen. Try to break it in the middle (the stuff that holds wheels). Easy, isn't it? Try to break it from top to down (the legs of walker). Tough, isn't it?

Wheels need to be tough (=> heavy) so they'll stay round.

Actually that friend I was talking about had a professor on some subject that works on some walkers. He was testing some walker bigger than hippo in some desert and that walker run 140 km/h! And he told me this story 5 years ago.

Note I'm talking about walkers with 4 legs.

But indeed CoD sucks!

Edited May 3, 2012 by batto

[instagoat 133]

http://kotaku.com/5906808/48-things-that-you-should-know-about-call-of-duty-black-ops-ii <- some things Kotaku things we should be aware of. Most of it is meh to me. Only interesting reference is this: http://wiredforwar.pwsinger.com/ (Edit: mind, this isn´t exactly an academic source. Take with a grain of salt.)

That looks interesting. Maybe BI should expand their research to that, If they haven´t already. I think it´d be prudent for BI to consider sources such as this, open source think-tanks such as APA, and other such sources.

I hope they´ve done their homework. While I don´t care about what kind of equipment is used in Arma 3, and in what disposition, what I care about is it behaving within reasonable (ie, realistic) parameters. F-35s defeating possible Iranian PAK-FA´s for example would be a big no-no.

[Opticalsnare 12]

Yeah, exactly, they weight 100 tons. And they drive 5 km/h...

Caterpillar 797 - Top Speed (Loaded) 40mph

Thats a bit faster than 5 km/h

So if 4 legs are better, what happens if i come along and blow a leg off? :Oo:

Edited May 3, 2012 by Opticalsnare

[batto 17]

Caterpillar 797 - Top Speed (Loaded) 40mph

Thats a bit faster than 5 km/h

That's top speed. It could take long time till it reaches it.

I'll get more info about the 140 km/h robot during weekend. In the meantime: http://www.isafetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/big-dog-robot-large.jpg

[max power 21]

Oh yes, the robot solution is so obvious. I mean, look at all the giant walkers we have now in... err.... look at... damn.

I find it a little absurd that you're talking about giant walkers and you're saying that the main advantage is top speed. Exactly how fast do you think that a 300 tonne walker would go?