What should Treyarch do to innovate in Black Ops 2

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

What they could do to be innovative is to not release it this year. Give it a 3-year development cycle, because otherwise we get shit like MW3, which is basically MW2, given that MW2 was only MW1.5.

I'm sick of $60 expansions. Either give me a full, new game, or make it cost a fair goddamn amount.

That said, MW3 was my last entry in the series. I'm disappointed that I spent $60 on it, because I truly don't see myself ever touching it again, and I'm certainly not going to throw them an additional $50/70 for 12 new maps.

Jakub324:

This plot only works if all of Europe is run by monkeys.

Have you watched the news lately?

OT: I would like to see them do something different for once.

Anything but the currency system. I have nothing else to add because I'm not buying any CoD g as mes again, especially Treyarch games. Treyarch sucks at making games big time.

Well, here's my World of War fanboy reasoning

1)Don't make the main character Superman, the reason I thought WaW was superior to BO is because both of the main characters weren't portrayed as some kind of Man of Steel, besides the Russian's tendency not to stay dead, making the campaign feel epic due to the fact that if you got stabbed in a cut scene their was a moment wondering whether you'd make it.

2)Bring back Kiefer Sunderland, fairly self explanatory.

3)Adopt MewThree's MP, it isn't perfect, but it's the best in a CoD's if you ignore Mew and WaW.

Stop making CoD altogether. They butchered it with MW2, and CoD4 was the last truly great CoD game. If I had to say what will improve the game, BRING BACK 3, 5, 7 KILLSTREAKS!!! For the love of god, I am sick of watching people camp in the corner of a map and still manage to get all the kills because they saved up for a Tactical Godzilla or some other bullshit. The best KS in CoD4 wasn't that good, WHICH IS HOW IT SHOULD BE! Killstreaks should help players get a few extra kills, not end the frickin game.

Larger maps, fewer weapons, different terrain types, something actually unique about each map, and personally I'd enjoy a wider FoV.

But I don't really care about the setting and story, at least not in call of duty.

There going to need to do a lot to make me buy it. Tons more weapons/gear, a map editor, BIGGER more open maps, cooler game modes, and way more zombie stuff.

telocaster:
They could:
- a new engine
- focus on the single player
- interesting and fun to use weapons with lots of variety
- stop glorifying america (I say this as a resident of the u.s)
- sprawling non linear levels
- no regenerating health
- vehicle sections that are not rail shooters
- stop being realistic

I agree entirely, but your last point made me laugh. Call of Duty stopped being realistic around World at War. I think a better point would be "stop being serious"

I'd like to see larger maps with more details like wide open areas and buildings that you can actually go into. I liked the MW2 and Black Ops maps but the MW3's just seem too small and plain to me.

Some more freedom in the missions like in COd 2 would be nice, you know multiplae paths and objectives. Seriously i feel like im being led by the nose through corridors now. So instead of it being a "linear" mission. Make it more open plan, like in hitman or freedom fighters or medal of honour airborn. This would at least make it more replayable.

^^Like someone else said, enough with the whole "team america - F*** Yeah!" Attitude, maybe a story where the heroes and villains are not so clear cut.

More multiplayer customisation - I dont just mean guns n stuff, but game modes for custom games. Halo really puts it to shame in this department.

And most of all, come up with some sort of better unlocking system, kind of like the money system in black ops. Seriously the bar for entry after the first few months is ridiculous :/ Those that have been playing since it came out have a MASSIVE advantage over those just starting out.

Take a leaf from battlefields book and come up with some mechanics centred around teamwork.

They need to make a new Call of Duty game ... IN SPAAAAAAACE !!!! AND WITH GRIMDARK CYBERPUNK FUTURE !!!!
Seriously, think of the possibilities : jet packs, over-the-top guns and vehicles, cyber-soldiers, no need to try being 'realistic' (even through CoD as realistic as westboro baptist church's view of how real life works) and stuff !

C2Ultima:
http://www.codblackopsblog.com/what-should-treyarch-do-to-innovate-with-black-ops-2/

That link made me curious as to see some suggestions from any escapists. Personally, I'd be glad if they focused a lot more on stealth with this one.

It's a shame to see that they just seem to not really care about trying anymore, and if they put even less effort into it then MW3, it'll probably be the last Call of Duty game I plan to play.

Also, inb4 "Call of Duty? Innovate? HAHAHAHAHA!"

In the single player?

1) Ability to choose a weapon's loadout before a mission rather than just being handed whatever gear the level designers arbitrarily decided on. By all means, give me a mission briefing and suggest weaponry but I want to choose it and I want to customise it.

2) Early cold war conflicts for some of the game - Korea and Suez for example.

3) Different nationalities - British, US, Russian.

4) How about instead of casting the Russians as the 'bad guys' let us play from their perspective, exploring why they acted the way they did, and how they perceived the West rather than just having them being 'evildoers' with no motivation beyond being evil.

In the multiplayer?

1) Bigger maps. BlOps was alright but MW3... why give me a sniper rifle if there's nowhere that a scope isn't pointless?

2) Bring back customisation in MP similar to the system in Black Ops.

krazykidd:
How about an american civil war. No russians , no terrorists , just America vs America . Just an idea.

The guns back then are SO awful, it would be hard to make a fun, well paced game with them but you are thinking a bit outside of the box and I like that.

For lack of experience, I can't speak for the actual gameplay. But they could do something new with that Zombies minigame. How about a small undead faction that helps you in Zombies? Like, Soviet mummy squads? I don't know, I'm just sticking ideas out there.

Your actions have appeased Pharaoh Lenin-khamun.

Shotgun Guy:

krazykidd:
How about an american civil war. No russians , no terrorists , just America vs America . Just an idea.

The guns back then are SO awful, it would be hard to make a fun, well paced game with them but you are thinking a bit outside of the box and I like that.

It doesn't need to be THE american civil war , just A american civil war . Maybe a futuristic civile war caused by the american government censoring the internet . Hows that for a video game plot .

krazykidd:

OT: Not call it black ops2 for one . How about an american civil war. No russians , no terrorists , just America vs America . Just an idea.

I would love it, accept, trench warfare. I hate trench warfare.

For the singleplayer: Lots of stealth missions/missions with the option to either go stealth or run and gun. The ability to do co-op campaign.

For the multiplayer: Get rid of the dumb instagib killstreak rewards such as AC-130, helicopters etc and instead add some clever ones that genuinely support the team rather than frustratingly obliterate the enemy. Some of the killstreak rewards in the support package and the specialist package in MW3 are good examples of this. Iron sights on sniper rifles would be cool, if only the bolt action ones to balance it.

Have spec ops and zombies game modes, and perhaps some kind of hybrid between the two.

TheKasp:

Jakub324:
It's not that far fetched, actually. Russia has over a million troops, and an ultranationalist version would probably push that up by another 500,000 or so. Assume the Russians hit the Americans with, say, 950,000 in MW2. That means they'd have 550,000 left to take a Europe that no longer had nearly as many troops as would be necessary. And let's not forget about the troops Makarov could've committed. He must have had a few thousand willing to do what regular soldiers would not.
OT: I'd like to see customisable facepaint and gun camouflage. I'm talking about saying 'Yeah, I like the pattern you get with Berlin camo, but what if I change the colours to, say, red and black?' (which I swear they promised in Black Ops).

It's not only farfetched, it's impossible to invade all of Europe in one hit. Britain has ~100k soldiers, Germany 200k, switzerland 170k, France 340k. Even if we assume that Russia somehow splits their army reasonable according to the countries they are invading, they are still far too small to making it more than a weak attempt defeated after their first strike. After that, with the help of the USA, Russia would be crushed from all sides.

This plot only works if all of Europe is run by monkeys.

But the gas attacks! They took most of Europe out. Remember snooping around that house in Paris, with all the dead civilians? That was what it was supposed to be like across every military base in Europe! That's why it was left to the Americans to bail everyone out. And of course they could have hit every one at once. They still have an air force, you know. That means they could drop troops in to take everything important before shipping more in to mop up.
What about the troops the Russians pulled out of the US? Do you think they;d just go home and put their feet up?

Scorekeeper:
1) No killstreaks
2) No deathstreaks
3) Add tanks, helicopters, and jets
4) Shift focus to teamwork
5) Larger teams
6) New engine

They already made that game. It was called Battlefield 3.

Scorekeeper:
1) No killstreaks
2) No deathstreaks
3) Add tanks, helicopters, and jets
4) Shift focus to teamwork
5) Larger teams
6) New engine

Or just go buy Battlefield 3 right now?

EDIT: Damn ninjas!

Three dimensional characters that I give a damn about would be nice and innovative for this franchise

Iwata:

MetallicaRulez0:
I think it'd be very innovative if Treyarch launched their entire headquarters into the Sun.

Black Ops 2 will not be as good as any entry in the MW series. That's obvious. Treyarch has shown a complete lack of understanding when it comes to building a solid game engine. See: bad hit detection in every title they've ever made.

Incoming BlOps fanboys saying "hit detection is fine, L2P".

Umm... ok. Nice "incoming" thing and all, I'm sure that helps your argument.

In any case, I enjoyed the Black Ops campaign. Certainly more than the one in MW2. It felt better, more frenetic, with better maps. Less spectacular, but certainly better paced.

I'll admit that. Black Ops had the 2nd best campaign in the series (behind CoD4). However, the actual game (meaning the multiplayer) was FAR worse than any of the 3 MW games.

For 98% of players, the campaign is just a tacked-on extra compared to the multiplayer. Personally, I've spent maybe 30 hours going through all of the CoD campaigns. That's maybe 1/50th the time that I've spent playing the multiplayer. For most people, the campaign just doesn't matter.

MetallicaRulez0:

Iwata:

MetallicaRulez0:
I think it'd be very innovative if Treyarch launched their entire headquarters into the Sun.

Black Ops 2 will not be as good as any entry in the MW series. That's obvious. Treyarch has shown a complete lack of understanding when it comes to building a solid game engine. See: bad hit detection in every title they've ever made.

Incoming BlOps fanboys saying "hit detection is fine, L2P".

Umm... ok. Nice "incoming" thing and all, I'm sure that helps your argument.

In any case, I enjoyed the Black Ops campaign. Certainly more than the one in MW2. It felt better, more frenetic, with better maps. Less spectacular, but certainly better paced.

I'll admit that. Black Ops had the 2nd best campaign in the series (behind CoD4). However, the actual game (meaning the multiplayer) was FAR worse than any of the 3 MW games.

For 98% of players, the campaign is just a tacked-on extra compared to the multiplayer. Personally, I've spent maybe 30 hours going through all of the CoD campaigns. That's maybe 1/50th the time that I've spent playing the multiplayer. For most people, the campaign just doesn't matter.

While I'm sure the majority prefers the MP, I'd think 98% might be pushing it. Of the people I personally know, exactly 0% of us buy the games for the MP.

The only good parts of CoD games are the stealth/spec ops sequences, so they should just run with it and make a tactical shooter. As a side benefit, multiplayer might actually be fun.

Fix the split screen first. They need to scale down the mini map so that it doesn't take up a portion of the screen large enough to block enemies from your field of view. Also, they need a more creative name then "black ops 2"also, no super overpowered guns. And custom camos.

now I only played the single player of black ops and a few nights of the multiplayer so I don't know much about it but I would like to see the killstreaks thing go right out the window, the idea of giving the best players the biggest guns only serves to raise the barrier of entry on a already noob unfriendly game. more heath would also serve to eliminate the "hide and seek" style gameplay.

a better written single player would be nice too, the well assembled gameplay always seemed like it was wasted on the stories the game told.

MetallicaRulez0:
I think it'd be very innovative if Treyarch launched their entire headquarters into the Sun.

Black Ops 2 will not be as good as any entry in the MW series. That's obvious. Treyarch has shown a complete lack of understanding when it comes to building a solid game engine. See: bad hit detection in every title they've ever made.

Incoming BlOps fanboys saying "hit detection is fine, L2P".

Assuming you only play multiplayer? Single player Treyarch makes much better games than IW, been that way since MW1. They should just stick to single player.

And the hit detection is fine. Its stayed pretty damn consistent over the last 5 years of being mediocre. I don't know why BLOPs gets such a hard time over it considering its about as bad as MW2's.

krazykidd:

Shotgun Guy:

krazykidd:
How about an american civil war. No russians , no terrorists , just America vs America . Just an idea.

The guns back then are SO awful, it would be hard to make a fun, well paced game with them but you are thinking a bit outside of the box and I like that.

It doesn't need to be THE american civil war , just A american civil war . Maybe a futuristic civile war caused by the american government censoring the internet . Hows that for a video game plot .

Ah, I see. I don't dislike the idea, I'd be interested in a game like that but I don't see a studio wanting to publish that game, it would just piss way too many people off.

dogstile:
And the hit detection is fine. Its stayed pretty damn consistent over the last 5 years of being mediocre. I don't know why BLOPs gets such a hard time over it considering its about as bad as MW2's.

Trust me, go play MW2 and then play Black Ops. The shitty hit detection is VERY noticeable. Not only that, but there's hit lag as well. In CoD4 and MW2, if your on a decent host bullets register instantly. In Black Ops, there's a 100-200ms delay on hit detection regardless of host connection. That's why Treyarch's games feel so shitty compared to IW's games.

MetallicaRulez0:

dogstile:
And the hit detection is fine. Its stayed pretty damn consistent over the last 5 years of being mediocre. I don't know why BLOPs gets such a hard time over it considering its about as bad as MW2's.

Trust me, go play MW2 and then play Black Ops. The shitty hit detection is VERY noticeable. Not only that, but there's hit lag as well. In CoD4 and MW2, if your on a decent host bullets register instantly. In Black Ops, there's a 100-200ms delay on hit detection regardless of host connection. That's why Treyarch's games feel so shitty compared to IW's games.

Done. Maybe its just my playstyle, but it really doesn't feel that noticeable to me.

TheKasp:

Jakub324:
It's not that far fetched, actually. Russia has over a million troops, and an ultranationalist version would probably push that up by another 500,000 or so. Assume the Russians hit the Americans with, say, 950,000 in MW2. That means they'd have 550,000 left to take a Europe that no longer had nearly as many troops as would be necessary. And let's not forget about the troops Makarov could've committed. He must have had a few thousand willing to do what regular soldiers would not.
OT: I'd like to see customisable facepaint and gun camouflage. I'm talking about saying 'Yeah, I like the pattern you get with Berlin camo, but what if I change the colours to, say, red and black?' (which I swear they promised in Black Ops).

It's not only farfetched, it's impossible to invade all of Europe in one hit. Britain has ~100k soldiers, Germany 200k, switzerland 170k, France 340k. Even if we assume that Russia somehow splits their army reasonable according to the countries they are invading, they are still far too small to making it more than a weak attempt defeated after their first strike. After that, with the help of the USA, Russia would be crushed from all sides.

This plot only works if all of Europe is run by monkeys.

We're in trouble then...

Darkwhite:

TheKasp:

This plot only works if all of Europe is run by monkeys.

We're in trouble then...

Heh, let me rephrase that:

This plot only works if all of Europes military is run by monkeys.

I'm gonna be the sour puss and say NOT MAKE IT!!!

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked