Black Ops 2 was honestly the best MP game to date. If it's lag issues and boosters that are the issue, then it's not the game that's at fault here. I barely have lag issues, but when I do, it's because of a clearly bad host. But again, if those players didn't have bad internet in the first place, then we wouldn't be having this problem.
In other regards, just about everything about the game was balanced and unique enough to allow players to customize their setups via the pick 10 system (and DLC camo). In addition, I didn't see any commando lunging, OMA tubing, deathstreaks, second chance, and machine pistols. That alone is worthy enough of praise.
The only gripes I have about Black Ops 2 are some pistols being too overpowered (B23R and KAP40), the lack of a quickscoping gimp that was applied in Black Ops 1, certain custom options missing from custom games, and fun game modes like Infected not returning.
...Wait, I didn't mention the target finder you say? Sorry, I don't complain about little red shapes, especially when I use Cold Blooded.
Garbage. Got it as a gift after intentionally tell people I didn't want cod (although not as bad as Halo 4 which I requested). Pick ten destroyed most offensive classes. Game is broken caters to bad players and it has forced people into defending it. Call out MW2 never admit the massive amount of garbage your combat record is because you embarrassed yourself and don't want to admit it. I think it's better than MW3 and slightly worse than BO1 as BO1 created the situation that caused players to need to turn a blind eye to imbalance and desperately scramble to defend their actions and MW3 was less balanced than BO2. Recently destroyed my disc (surprisingly difficult it can fold in half without snapping). I like to watch streams because I enjoy cringe worthy bad play. This game destroyed my faith in the COD community as now both dev teams have proven their intentions and the community is unwilling to adapt to the fact that they are embarrassing themselves.
i got the game for free, so i can't complain much. still.. i'd give the game 5 out of 10 stars. that's because only about 50% of the time do i feel my PS3 is running correctly with the rest of the game. the other 50% i'm behind and can't get a hit marker. sometimes the lag will go from one side to another mid-game. THAT is frustrating. though i admit "god mode" is no fun, it's very odd to be 25-1 in the beginning of the match, but end up 27-17 at the very end.
i still will not buy DLC. i still will not buy any games. not until i hear that the game is functioning the way it should.
then again, i'm comparing today's game with that of MW and MW2....so maybe that's not fair. those games were simple and awesome. not the bloated game we play now.
overall opinion would be its a good game but it could of been so much better. The zombies is great can't fault that at all, the dlc alone for zombies was worth buying the season pass for me. Now the multiplayer is a let down the lags just horrible and there's the quick scopers that alone has put me right of cod. I've been playing black ops 1 again all day today and that's what you call a great multiplayer game still to this day it's head and shoulders above black ops 2.
Can't answer that. Black Ops 2 falls into the black ops family which caters to bad players. It's the whole bad balance insanely dumb streaks attachment perks auto aim bad fps mechanics not arcade not tactical we want to sell a ton of games and we can't be bogged down by the need to practice be intelligent be skilled be smart because we gotta push units. I'm more in the boat of what doesn't COD do to cater to bad players but of course under the current COD hive mind those players are smart highly skilled highly competitive killing machines that didn't pick up an easy game cause they can't hack it. I guess if you walk into gamestop right now you guys are average and if you keep it up in two years you will be godlike. Unless COD is your first fps you know the answer so seek a challenge because when cod seems too hard to the next wave of scrubs they will undercut you and you will be stuck playing a game that involves running around giving hugs for friend points and achievements looking back going dang what happened to gamers.
I'm gonna judge all three aspects of the game: Campaign, Multiplayer, and Zombies.
The story follows protagonist David Mason, son of Black Ops protagonist Alex Mason, in his attempt to stop a world-wide threat (Raul Menendez). The gameplay itself has been changed compared to past Call of Duty campaigns where the plot was straight-forward and unchanged by anything done in game. This time, actions in-game now affect a lot of plot points that also might affect gameplay sometimes. There's also the Create-A-Class system that was implemented, something that I think is a huge improvement over getting a fixed set of weapons and allows you to mix it up and entertain yourself with random and goofy load-outs sometimes. Strike Force missions are also a good addition in my opinion. Many people say that these weren't all that fun, but I disagree. They were a challenge to play if you were on the higher difficulties (Hardened and Veteran) and required some form of strategy at the least. They also affected the plot as well (I think they may have majorly affected the plot but I'm not too sure), so it's probably good to see how they play through (whether or not you win or lose).
So, my score for the campaign is a 8.5/10. It by far has the best plot that I've seen from any CoD game (with, in my opinion, Black Ops behind it and MW3 and CoD4 tied for third). However, there are a few plot holes and even though I do praise the Strike Force, even it has a few things that need to be worked out. However, the multiple plot changes and everything else do give it some replayability.
The multiplayer has changed from past titles. We have a new Create-A-Class system, new Streak system, and refined or new mechanics. We have been formerly introduced to the new Pick-10 system this game, the new Create-A-Class system made to give greater customization to your classes and allow for greater flexibility. It's an interesting way to mix things up this time around. We also have Scorestreaks, something that I think is a vast improvement over Killstreaks from past games and a somewhat better or refined version of Pointstreaks from MW3 (which also happen to be returning in Ghosts). They allow for the most precise tweaking of streaks, where the devs can not only alter the streaks but also the required score for them (e.g. They altered the required score for a UAV from 375 to 425). Now, I also mentioned some refined or new mechanics. First thing that comes to mind is the new recoil system. Yes, the recoil mechanic has been altered from past titles. I would explain, but I don't even understand it. If you are interested in this, I'd recommend watching XboxAhoy's 'Time to Kill' episode on YouTube. Goes into pretty good depth and how recoil works in this series. Then go over to the Den Kirson or Symthic forums and ask them how the new recoil mechanic works, and they might be able to put it into perspective for you. Now, the next mechanic that was refined was the range system. In past games, damage dropped linearly between the maximum and minimum damage ranges. So, for example, your gun might do 40 damage up to 25m. After that that number will keep dropping until it has reached the minimum damage number. However, it doesn't work this way in Black Ops 2. In this game, they designed a non-linear range system. So unlike past games, the damage your gun dealt at point blank range will be the same damage that it does out to its set distance (for example, the M27 deals 33 damage out to 37.5m. It does not drop, just continues that damage out to its set distance). This new range mechanic allows them to alter gun balance unlike any other CoD title, with more precision in a gun's ability to kill. Gun balance in this game has so far been the best of any CoD title. Yes, we've had some balance issues but Treyarch has managed to balance them out. I still think a few weapons could use some buffs, but even now they're decent enough to use and be competitive against others (that includes the Executioner folks, but doesn't include the Assault Shield.....). Now, I also have to mention one of the games features which I barely ever hear of on the forums: Theater Mode. I rarely see this awesome thing mentioned on here without there being some mention of cheating or it being a YouTuber trying to 'get big'. It's an awesome feature that I'm sad to hear might not make it into Ghosts. It is a pretty good feature and has always been excellent (except in MW3, where it became seizure mode.....).
All in all, I'm giving this MP a 7.5/10. The only nuisances I can really find are with the people that play and the match-making. You may be asking "What about the LAAAAAAAAG!?". I don't have much problems in the way of lag besides the occasional two bar (which only makes a difference every so often).
Zombies has come a long way from World at War maps, they've been making the mode wackier and crazier since it came along and Black Ops 2 has definitely followed that trail. Zombies has never been so different. The story line has been expanded to involve four new characters and the game mode has been enhanced greatly by the use of the multiplayer engine instead of the single player, expanding its capabilities. We've had some of the greatest zombie experiences since Der Riese in World at War and Moon in Black Ops (arguably the two most innovative of all the maps from their respective games). All of the maps have added some 'exciting' new features that give the maps character and allow for simple ideas from before to be expanded even more. For example, transport in past games usually consisted of elevator-like utilities. Now they've transformed into actual vehicles, whether it's a tank or bus. The story for zombies is also great, even with Mob of the Dead which has its own story to tell. The characters are interesting and funny. Zombies is just a great expansion for this game and I can only hope it's here to stay a while longer.
All in all, zombies is very good experience and has few flaws to spot (if there's any at all) which is why it gets my score of 9/10.
Black Ops 2: Great game, people are dicks, and everything else.
8/10 is my overall score for it.
Thank you for reading
So.....from what I could possibly translate from what you said, you think Call of Duty caters to bad players because it's an arcade style shooter with a large MLG fanbase? If you wanted smart, tactical gameplay, then that's what Battlefield is for. If people want to play a game for the competitive satisfaction, then they have that right since it's their game in the first place.
Back to the original question, if you cannot determine what features in Black Ops 2 cater to bad players, then that means there are no such "noob catering" features to even begin with.
Overall I give it a C+ to a B- (a pretty good rating BTW, think of an "A" game as perfection.)
The kiddie camos took away the adult, combat or war "feel" a game such as CoD should provide.
But for Nuketown and it coming up every other map, it would have been a solid B-.
But for Slums, Cargo, Standoff, it would have been a C. The last map pack helped too.
The rest of the maps fell victim to forumla. That was just lazy and uninspired. But for this, it may have been a solid B.
Crashing systems at release left a lasting impression that the game is flawed. "You never get a chance to make another first impression."
I had no real problems with the game's playability or weapons or perks, etc. They are what they are and my opinion is CoD isn't that hard to adjust to title after title because it really doesn't change that much titile after title. Maps skills have always been key to good play, which is why I focused on maps so much above. The game will only be as good as the maps.