um hello where are the zombie trailers at. it's almost november and no one has yet to see a zombie trailer yet. Zombies is what makes people buy this game more. honestly if there wasn't zombies i don't know how many people would get this game i know still alot but yea
This seems along the same lines of the dumb collectors edition for MW2 with the night vision goggles but even those were more useful....pass.
call of duty is a series that should have expanded into something amazing when they released COD4 but instead they rehashed the same game to play it safe and make money. In my opinion they need to go back to the drawing board with the series and rehire all the smart people they fired. I just don't understand why people don't see it.
Oh yeah now I remember most of the COD players are 12.
Understand that there are twice as many children playing FPS games than adults are so they focus more on the children;but the downloadable content alone makes the extra editions worth it.
This game is for kids. Hence, the dumb toys that come with it now. This is the power rangers of FPS for kids. How cute.
its about to happen keep playing call of duty black ops till the wheels fall off and we all know what time thats gonna be?
COD sucks wuth those bloody tiny maps
no graphics COD is still in stone age on Graphics and multiplayer
BF3 is best but I have both all COD series and all Battlelfield series
MW3 sucked ass. I say sucked cause I haven't played it in a while. MW3 is the first CoD I lost interest in after 3 months.
How can you reward someone with a kill streak if they died. what a lame-o idea that was.
Treyarch all day.
Please don't let me down.
good inovation with this care pack. in MW3 you can shoot from the osprey but cant drive it, with this drone in Black Ops 2 you can drive and shoot.
you know its aimed at teens and youngsters when they are adding remote control choppers and cars. I'm 29 and my buddies and I are into building drones with go pro camera's on them... I see this little piece of crap chopper and realize that cod is truly for teeny boppers.
Nuketown Zombies would actually be really fun, gotta say. I hope it's expanded more than the nuketown level in Black Ops 1 though...
You've gotta admit though, this looks a hell of a lot more awesome than some plastic figurines and an art book.
I think any jack ass that still waits in line for this crap needs to play something new. Call of Duty needs to call it self call of been doing the same crap for years. Its all ways the same game every year ooooo new maps new skins it looks a lil better that's a new game?
O thats why it costs so much. They air drop it to your house. Totally worth the cost now. I just gotta get 4 kills and a red smoke grenade so they can see where I live.
there's only one way to objectively rate games, through sales. the rest is subjective nonsense. therefore, COD and MW are great games, that many developers wish they could emulate.
Should be called the "who cares package"...and what a rip off..no wonder Actinovision turns out this duff every year if people buy this china made rubbish.
I pre-ordered the Hardened Edition, but I'm not going for the Care Package. Campers always steal my care packages anyway.
you must be a bf3 fanboy if you don't like it then don't say anything personally i think there cool especially the drone you must be jealous that bf3 doesn't give you anything cool
@chaos-commander yes there are a lot of unmonitored kids but there are a lot of decent players to and bo2 will bring amazement
@dj_tiesto_9000 yeah I'm sorry that bf3 doesn't give anything cry more
@ghost688 So now we have a mini gun ship, how wonderful.
@Codester_41 The nuketown zombie level is going to encompass the nuketown level from BO 1 and there is also a zombie map as big as a suburban town, that is what you see shown in the trailer.
@Evarod48 wahahaha +1
@mikefasnyc No, that's how you objectively rate marketing. The only way to objectively rate a game is playing it yourself and weighing what it does right, versus what it does wrong. Of course, that objectivity is subjective to the viewer.
@BmF_McLovin $179.99 care package $89.99 hardened edition. 60 for the game 30 for DLC and coins 90 for RC MQ-27 drone and Care Package.
@thereal-15-cent ROFL... I feel your pain.
@Tora_Kuo you just made my point. we all have our preferences so there's no way to objectively measure them. if it was simply marketing, then all a company would have to do is allocate a ton of markting dollars a create instant successes. that certainly doesn't work. i'm sure marketing helps, but I suggest you don't use it to measure a good game. think of it this way, do you really listen to movie critics? they're just applying their subjective opinions to new movies. If you find one that shares your likes and dislikes then maybe, but most of them don't know their asses.
@mikefasnyc To be honest, I would like to think that I've outgrown the 'fan-boy' stage of playing first person shooters. Trust me, I love the easy, casual method formula of 'jump in, jump out' that the CoD franchise has mastered, the problems I have with it is that through all the mechanics that work, there are times I think that the publisher calls too many shots and it results in a game that appears to have been developed by people with their heads shoved firmly up their asses. It holds to the formula too text-book. It needs to expand, and alter our perceptions of what to expect of a shooter. The problem is the mechanics are always the same, they're always dumbed down. Same thing happens with BF3, and I'm sure BF4 won't be much better. You find something that works and you go for that because it makes money, but there is always room to push the limits, and CoD and BF3 are failing that in a few ways.
I also agree that the only way to truly evaluate a game is to actually play it, thus, spending $60 on the damn thing. This is largely the problem I have with the pay first play later model of game development, and why free to play seems to be dominating the marketplace. It allows you to 'play, then if you like, feel free to support the devs'. The problem that plagues free to play is 'pay to win' balancing issues. But with intellect applied, this can also be eliminated.
Additionally I have issues with metacritic, because that score is aggregate. This means it's basically a combined average, and isn't really a good measure of real critical review. And like you said, reviewers can seem to be on the take.
How I judge a game is both by connections to people that have taken the plunge, or my gut instincts based on what I see of game play reviews. I let my eyes and ears judge what I'm watching, based on previous experience, as well as what I'm hoping to see out of the game (looking for innovations or changes). I also listen to the features explained in the game, from reviewers and player reviews. Sometimes, I just like a franchise so I support it. The original black-ops didn't offer much in the way of innovation, but I loved the individual character customization, the face paint, gillie suits, etc. The addition of a peek function was a big surprise that I loved in the game. I've always liked the MW armament model in regards to choice, but feel it could really go much, much further in customization. Anyway, I guess I can't help but think about this, as I'm getting into game development soon and am currently in graphic design. I tend to study what I play. Well met and nice chatting to you too.
@Tora_Kuo some deep analysis, good stuff. better than the typical childish posts. i think we agree for the most part. my only problem is i find it very difficult to keep dropping the $60 or so bucks on games in order to critically evaluate. So what are our options? We can read reviews, and comments. But i find most of the reviews seem paid for. I just don't trust them. I tend to use the user ratings or metacritic score as a guide. To me that's sort of like evaluating popularity by what people are playing - or actually dropping their hard earned cash on. Just to actually comment on the game itself, I think they figured out a pretty good formula. It works. Fast, responsive, easy to pick up and put down, and damn fun. good chatting.
The only way to objectively measure anything is with a critical view. This requires a bit of detachment and a fair bit of knowledge about the genre of what it is that you're judging. OF course one's preferences might well come into play, but more often, the 'preferences' you might be referring to are going to have to do with game-play mechanics, level design, character design, story, environments, graphics quality...
Yet those same qualities that you may have preferences about are qualities which you can evaluate critically and objectively. There are lots of ways to gauge a game without 'personal preferences' coming into it, or without allowing them to cloud your judgment.
The clouding, and the lack of objectivity comes from allowing the marketing to psyche you out, which is what marketing does. It gets you excited all on its own, and you haven't even had a chance to see the game in action or get a feel for it yourself.
And for the record, Activision spends millions... Tens of millions, on marketing these games. And that produces a significant amount of success, because the people they target don't have the critical evaluation skills to see through the bullshit. By 'people they target', I mean people in the 12 - 18 range, though there are a fair amount of us that are older than that, that still play this series.
Ultimately I agree, one should not attempt to judge a game by it's sales, or it's marketing. Because they are both part of the same process, and one feeds the other. If someone judges a game to be good because "oh, it sold so many millions of copies in 2 weeks!' then they're an idiot. All that says is that the marketing was successful and the marketing succeeded in securing those sales. It says nothing about the actual qualities of the game.
And this brings me to why I'm really irked about Activision at the moment and that is that they spend all this advertising money selling a repackaged and regurgitated and ultimately recycled game platform and calling it new because the devs updated the game engine a bit. And have the gall to call it a 'new game'. No, it's not new. It hasn't been new since 20005. And we as gamers need to stop being the tools publishers take us for and stop buying into the hype. I guarantee you this game isn't going to offer anything different except story. There's nothing innovative here, and really, it's not that great looking either. I've seen better looking free to play games, tell ya the truth. And there are some F2P games that are by far more innovative.
Ultimately with the CoD track record what do you think keeps driving its successes? It's certainly nothing more than the advertising/marketing. Because it sure as hell isn't innovative game-play, unique or epic story arcs, fascinating characters or deep and interesting multi-player, or even cutting edge graphics. It's a tired franchise powered by a juggernaut marketing division. That's all it is.