Difficulty:

Easy

Time Spent:

20 to 40 Hours

The Bottom Line:

"Just plain fun"

If you purchased this game purely or mostly for the campaign, then I'd say you most likely wont be disappointed. That is, if you enjoyed the past Call of Duty campaigns. The Black Ops 2 campaign was fantastic in my humble opinion. They do give you the option to customize your load out prior to each mission which I felt was a great touch. The campaign will toss you back and forth between the Cold War and the year 2025. The near future does have some interesting gadgets and satisfying weapons, some of which are still in use today. I would have liked Treyarch to utilize a little creativity in developing their own futuristic weapons. Perhaps that is too much to ask after they clearly spent a lot of effort on the campaign. That effort is what got me back into the COD franchise, since Modern Warfare 2 and COD 4. The campaign also introduces a new mission type, known as Strike Force missions. These missions require the player to take control of multiple units to complete objectives. For instance, you may be given two four man teams, the Bear-Bot, the Hal Roomba, and a turret or two. I cannot remember the name for those mechanical contraptions. Anyway, it's a little RTS mixed with FPS. At any time you can take control of any of the soldiers or mechs to lay waste to the attackers. In most cases you will as they do die easily and frequently. While they are new and different, they can be irritating at times. I have to say that I do like everything about the campaign.

Multiplayer... Where are they going with the COD franchise in this regard? I feel like their target demographic for multiplayer are those with Down Syndrome. No offense to those who know someone with Down Syndrome. As far as multiplayer gameplay/gunplay goes, it's pretty much the same as previous titles. The maps have multiple routes which can be utilized to flank or flee. I'm no fan of that particular design, especially when it's combined with the worst spawn system I've ever seen. More often then not, you will be killed by someone spawning extremely close to you. In some cases you may spawn right next to a player who's just running along until he sees you appear, easy kill. The maps all feel the same. Sure they look different, but they all FEEL the same. I can appreciate small maps as the action does ensue within seconds, but I feel as though that is an excuse to make some of the worst, unimaginative maps I've seen in an FPS. The maps are so tight/narrow that I felt right from the start that the ideal weapon would be the SMG, and judging from what I've seen I am right. They do have open areas for those manhandling an assault rifle or sniper rifle, but those with SMGs can avoid those wide open areas by taking one of the MANY paths. Sniping in Black Ops 2 is incredibly easy. If anyone says different, try it for a week and you'll be as good as any of them. Quickscoping does take some time to learn, so don't expect to pick that up right away if you haven't already in the previous titles. I always thought Quickscoping was ridiculous as it defeats the true purpose of the sniper rifle.

I am not someone who believes video games need to be ultra-realistic, but some semblance of realism goes a long way. Balance is what I care most about. For the most part it's fairly balanced in Black Ops 2 multiplayer. Each weapon without attachments seem as though they can all be viable options. Having said that, some weapons are obviously used more than others. I have no problem with that at all, just to be clear. The same with attachments. One in particular really sets itself apart, the Target Finder attachment. When you aim down sights with this little attachment any enemy that enters the Target Finder sight is designated with a red diamond. It's as if the game was targeted to dimwits. The Call of Duty franchise has never required much in the way of thinking, why dumb it down even more?

There's plenty to complain about but the point is, they keep dumbing down every new Call of Duty game. They did add some nice new features to multiplayer though. You now have a Pick-10 system within Create-A-Class. You can only pick a total of ten items per load out. You also have Wildcards within Create-A-Class, which essentially allows you to break the rules a little. Wildcards may allow you to equip a third attachment for your primary weapon, take a second perk, or even allow you to equip a second primary weapon. The graphics are fairly decent as well. I cannot complain about that. As long as I can tell the difference between a bush and a person, we're good. Overall, I still feel as though the game is worth the purchase. Despite how dumb multiplayer has gotten, it doesn't mean it isn't fun. In the end that is all that matters. I play Battlefield 3 when I'm feeling a little competitive, and Black Ops 2 when I just want to mess around. Does it require much skill? Not really. Good reflexes? You bet. My last gripe with multiplayer is this; with all the money that COD makes Activision/Treyarch/Infinity Ward, why haven't COD players been gifted with that of dedicated servers? The system they have in place now is awful, though it's cheap. I'm sure that's the bottom line.

In terms of Zombie mode, I have nothing to say. I've yet to try it.

I'm no professional reviewer, obviously. I just wanted to give my two cents. Would I recommend buying it? Sure, it has a great campaign and multiplayer can be good fun if you just want to kill some time. If you are coming from Battlefield, please be warned that you will feel your IQ drop significantly when you first expose yourself to Black Ops 2 multiplayer. This is normal. Hehe, have a good one everybody.