Barozi said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
I have to agree with Barozi. After World at War I was excited to see what Treyarch would do with Black Ops. Boy was I in for a rude awakening. Black Ops played like a rail shooter and Black Ops II was even worse, with those frustrating Strike Force missions. I couldn't bring myself to play part III.
|
eh I liked both World at War and Black Ops (good story).
Better don't touch Black Ops III. I'm 4 missions in and the story is convoluted with your typical spec ops blah blah. You basically don't know who you're fighting with and against whom and why it matters, but who cares anyway. Some terrorists I think. Levels are mostly too dark, so you need to constantly use your ability to visually highlight enemies. No connection to BlOps or BlOps II. Game is glitchy. In-game cinematics run at about 20FPS for whatever reason. Enemies can be very unforgiving even on Recruit. Died multiple times due to grenades and rockets exploding in my face without any prior indication. That's typical Treyarch too. Dodging random explosions isn't challenging, just cheap.
On the plus side. You can sort of create your own character (very limited though).
I got it a few months ago for 6€. Glad I didn't pay more. Bought Advanced Warfare for 19€ back then and had much more fun (Kevin Spacey is awesome).
|
Oh, I really enjoyed World at War. I think Treyarch did a good job at nailing the improvisational combat of the Pacific theater.
Starting with Black Ops, the studio seemed to over-value storytelling and big action set pieces. I felt like I was watching as much as I was playing in Black Ops. I thought the morality choices in BOII were clever, but poorly executed. And the jumping around in time seemed designed to satisfy the demands of the story, not to enhance gameplay.
I skipped Ghosts and Advanced Warfare, but maybe I'll give them a try. I absolutely loved the diversity and scope of the campaign in Infinite Warfare.
