Sections

Black Ops 2 multiplayer innovates, yet remains ‘true to the core’, says Treyarch

Saturday, 22nd September 2012 21:17 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Black Ops 2 multiplayer will be innovative without venturing too far from what makes it the “lifeblood” of the Call of Duty franchise, Treyarch boss Mark Lamia has said.

Speaking with CVG, Lamia said in order to stay relevant a series has to change, but at the same time keep from alienating its core fan base.

“Multiplayer is the lifeblood of the franchise,” said Lamia. “Call of Duty multiplayer is played 365 days a year, twenty-four seven, all over the world. But we can do better

“Black Ops did everything we wanted it to do. We had the customisation, the theatre, the emblem editor, great maps, great options – but one of the things that it didn’t do is look at the gameplay and say: ‘hey, let’s significantly innovate upon some of these core systems.’”

With Black Ops 2, Treyarch stuck with the core systems and added something new, said Lamia, in order to maintain accessibility while still adding depth.

“I think that if you want to maintain a franchise, that you’re going to have to innovate and keep it fresh, but also remain true to your core,” he said. “It’s absolutely the needle we try and thread in every game.

“I think you have to keep the game accessible but have that depth. I think it will take players awhile to peel back the layers on this one because there’s a lot of stuff going on underneath, there’s all kinds of different ways to play now. If you want to survive you’re going to have to play the objectives and play with your team.

“I think that’s a fundamental change to the way people play Call of Duty. Black Ops 2 isn’t just the next CoD game; it really is a major step in how Call of Duty’s gameplay is going to be perceived.”

You can read the entire multiplayer preview through the link.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is out November 13 on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360

Latest

27 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Omelette

    “If you want to survive you’re going to have toplay the objectives and play with your team.” Yeah, we will see about that. I want it to be true, Treyarch. I. want. it.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. OrbitMonkey

    Well, just so long as theirs still Team Deathmatch & free for all. Objective gameplay is nice and all, but sometimes I like a little casual violence.

    Though Treyarch are defo talking the talk this time round.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. MadFlavour

    They talk a good game, but alas, this is the same nonsense they were spouting before the first blops game came out. Well fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice… you can’t get fooled a second time, is the point.

    Texas wisdom!

    If you want strategery and team work play Battlefield if you want a mindless monkey shit fight, play cod.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. G1GAHURTZ

    Just because it doesn’t involve having a long chat while you wait another 10 seconds to respawn a 2 minute sprint (30 second drive) away from the action, it doesn’t mean that there’s no strategy involved in CoD.

    Surely the only people who say that are either n00bs, or have never played the game.

    Try beating a player with Sitrep Pro and a Portable Radar in a game of FFA with no strategy and see how far you get…

    #4 2 years ago
  5. ASBI

    double post

    #5 2 years ago
  6. ASBI

    @4 totally agree

    you must be agile to play properly.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. M. K.

    `If you want strategery and team work play Battlefield`

    Since when is jet and helicopter spawn trapping strategy? This post is so foolish, I would laugh if it wouldn’t be so sad ;)

    /e: ohyeah I forgot, Mark STFU and take my money :D

    #7 2 years ago
  8. Maximum Payne

    @7 That’s the beauty you never know what people could think of.
    Bigger maps,lot of vehicles, more people,destruction = more strategy.
    In MP games there is always a strategy and skill ,its just cod don’t compare to BF.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. G1GAHURTZ

    ^ That’s such a naive thing to say.

    If anything, BF is much easier, and you need less strategy, because of the size of the maps and the long times that you have to think and come up with a plan.

    In CoD, you have to think on the fly. You have to have a class that’s equipped to deal with every possible situation. You have to quickly know what classes your enemies are using, where they are on the map, what tactics they’re going for, what point (in time) in the game you’re at, what killstreaks they’re using, who’s the top player and where is he spawning, etc, etc, etc.

    You have to constantly reassess all of this information from minute to minute.

    Then, it depends on what game mode you’re playing.

    People incorrectly try and push this idea that CoD is purely TDM, but you’ve got SnD, FFA, Dom, CTF, Demolition, HTDM, etc, etc, etc. All of those modes need completely different tactics/strategies.

    You can’t just run and gun in hardcore Search and Destroy. You will lose every single time.

    Being able to fly a plane a long way doesn’t mean that there’s more strategy involved. Big deal. I can use a killstreak in CoD where I pilot a gunship… The difference is that in CoD, I need the skill to execute a strategy where I can get that killstreak reward.

    Any clown can fly a plane in BF.

    BF has strategy, sure. I’ve played it myself. But you can relax, take your time and think 10/20/30 seconds ahead of time what you’re going to do when you finally get to the top of that hill.

    Being a top quality CoD player needs a quicker mind, because all the action happens so much more quickly.

    And I can almost guarantee you that anyone who disagrees has a very, very low k/d in CoD, and/or has barely played it.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Maximum Payne

    ^^ Problem with most mode on CoD is even if you die , you can quickly come to same spot where you die and try again while on BF you need to be carefull when you are behind enemy line on rush mode for example.
    Cod has more strategy then MoH,CS.. but I still think BF is some kind of king :D

    #10 2 years ago
  11. G1GAHURTZ

    Well that’s fair enough. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, I suppose…

    #11 2 years ago
  12. Dave Cook

    Just been observing this thread. I played Black Ops 2 for 3 hours at gamescom and I have to say, it is the most team-focused entry yet because everything bleeds into your score streak system. Call up a UAV, and ever kill your team scores while its up nets you score streak for example.

    It’s never going to be Battlefield levels of teamwork because that’s not the game’s nature, but I firmly believe this is the most innovate entry yet. I like to see that Treyarch is at least trying to expand the source material it’s been given.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. DSB

    @10 That’s obviously because you haven’t played Planetside.

    Playing 32 v 32 is child’s play compared to 1000 v 1000.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. reask

    Funny thing is I went out and bought bf3 premium Thursday and am just playing tdm atm to get a proper feel for it.

    For the most part I am finding the matches pretty fast moving and I am able to deploy back in pretty much within a few seconds.

    I have gotten to about lvl 30 first prestige on mw3 and my honest opinion is if you are not good at run and gun you haven’t really got a good chance of survival.

    I aint knocking it as I know your awareness and accuracy need to be top notch to do well I suppose I just found it to be a little to fast paced for my skills.

    In fact I found myself doing better on the smaller maps with either a ump45 or p90 running and gunning whilst hip firing.

    I discovered I never was going to have much chance when I started watching my 14 year old daughter playing.

    Her level of awareness compared to me was in a different league.
    I know were talking blops here but they are pretty similar.

    I still find it a pity that iw do not match people with similar skills rather than rank as it might leave it a little bit less frustrating for people with less awareness than some of the really quick players.

    I do like cod but realise I cannot match the skills of 2 or 3 players in each lobby I go in to.

    Take for example ffa.
    iw have your k/d stats plus accuracy.
    Why not match players within a certain range say.

    As your stats then improve you get matched with better players or visa versa.

    I know they don’t need to do it that way as the game is popular enough as it is but it is just an honest opinion from a gamer who is not knocking the game or the folks that play it.

    I mean fair enough it is probably just me never been able to get to grips with the skill needed to compete in any form or fashion yet I still keep saying to myself would any other sport or hobby do that to a person who likes something a lot but will just never be the next Pele or Beethoven?

    Strange analysis I know but then again its the internet after all. :)

    #14 2 years ago
  15. G1GAHURTZ

    @reask:

    Treyarch have said that they’re putting a ladder system into BO2s matchmaking, so that people can play against people of equal skill. Pretty much exactly as you explained actually… The better players move higher up the ladder, so they they should all pretty much disappear from games with newbies and the likes.

    Theoretically…

    The only problem here is, and you can see a perfect example of this from my discussion in the SC2 (which uses a ladder system) thread, some good players get fed up with playing other good players.

    So they make new accounts every time they move up a division, just to stay where they can be the best player game after game.

    This can actually be even more annoying, because when you expect to be practicing against someone that you can compete with, but some guy who shouldn’t even be at that level is pwning you repeatedly, it feels like blatant cheating from them.

    Anyway, I’d like to see what they manage to come up with.

    And as for needing to be good at run and gun to play CoD, well not only does it depend on what mode you’re playing, but like I indicated above, there are load outs that can destroy run and gun every single time, if used effectively.

    Go Sitrep Pro and Portable Radar against people who are going run and gun, and you can pick them off like flies, for example.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. Dave Cook

    @15 yeah it’s called ‘League Play’, works the same as Halo’s leagues.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. G1GAHURTZ

    ^ Yeah, it looks like another huge addition to the MP.

    Moving up and down the ladder in SC2 keeps me coming back for more again and again (especially when I move down…), so League Play alone could add a whole new dimension.

    #17 2 years ago
  18. Maximum Payne

    @13 And your point ?

    #18 2 years ago
  19. DSB

    @18 That it isn’t a king.

    People have been doing coordinated airdrops of troops in Planetside since 2003. It’s hard just to get a lift in BF3, people are doing their own thing.

    There’s no real understanding of strength in numbers.

    Unlike a game where you may face 100 guys protecting a station, so you’re really better off bringing a friend.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. Dave Cook

    @19 but strength in numbers is’t why some people play shooters. Others like scaled-down focus, over widespread warfare. It’s all just a matter of taste really.

    Personally I much prefer the original Black Ops over any Battlefield game, and that’s not because I think BF is any worse. In fact, Bad Company 2 is my all-time favourite BF game and it’s on par with Black Ops I’d say.

    But they’re very, very different games. I’m not a fan of the eliteist snobbery that comes from fans of both sides saying that either one is better because of reason x, y or z. It confuses me why some people cant accept that both series are good.

    Not saying that you were doing that of course, just speaking generally :)

    #20 2 years ago
  21. OrbitMonkey

    @19, Battlefield in a nutshell (on PS3 anyways)

    http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/07/17

    I’m sure it’s a co-ordinated ballet of destruction on other platforms ;-)

    #21 2 years ago
  22. Dave Cook

    @21 haha amazing :D

    #22 2 years ago
  23. reask

    I didn’t know that Gigs.
    Sounds like it might be OK.

    On your other point whilst not disagreeing with you I know my personal problem is accuracy.
    To use my 14 year old for example, 4 bullets on a sub machine gun and there down.
    Me 2/3,s of a clip and there’s a good chance I will not have won that encounter.

    Your point about better players using alt accounts wouldn’t really bother me that much as you would imagine they would be the exception rather than the rule.

    I mean don,t get me wrong here as I do OK in it whilst not great.
    I am just using my own experience as an example and it would seem accuracy is a big factor in how you do.

    You see take most lobbies on ffa for instance.
    Next few times you play check the k/d ratio after each match and I can nearly guarantee you will find after the top 3 the other 5 will for the most part have either a negative k/d or in and around even.

    I actually see campers all the time and I honestly reckon they are doing it out of frustration most of the time.
    There scores at the end usually reflect that.

    #23 2 years ago
  24. reask

    Just 1 other point on better players using alts.
    They would still move up the league pretty quick anyway so it would be pretty futile for them anyway.

    #24 2 years ago
  25. DSB

    @20 I’ve played all three, and I love them, so I’m not trying to disqualify one or the other.

    It’s just the notion that the battlefield series is somehow a game angled towards cooperation and coordination, tied into some sort of military realism. It’s been ridiculous since the first time it was put forward by some fanboy, somewhere.

    It has objectives – Which is great, but does very little to promote actual cooperation, and simply places people around the same spots, around the same time, so they can imagine that they’re cooperating. Objectives are arbitrary, real coop shouldn’t be.

    Numbers are arbitrary as well, but there’s a big difference between storming an objective in Battlefield, and having to face maybe 10 guys tops, and literally fighting your way from rock to rock, up a hillside in Planetside, and having maybe 40 guys on your side fire at 60-100 guys on their side, with explosives and tracers going all around your head. 100-140 guns shooting in a general direction, sometimes at night where no one can see anything but the muzzle flashes.

    Maybe someone brings down a transport aircraft and lets the doorgunner join them, maybe you have tanks rolling up the road that need supporting in the middle of that chaos.

    The numbers create the chaos, just like a real combat situation, and that makes a lot of difference.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. Omelette

    About GlenMata and the likes.
    Wouldn’t it be possible to write a script that removes every comment that contains “goo.gl” ?

    And basing an opinion of Battlefield on Team Deadmatch results in having a biased opinion, but I guess the same thing can be said about CoD

    #26 2 years ago
  27. Brenna Hillier

    @27 nah, people do use that shortening service legitimately. The spam gets a bit out of hand on the weekend because we’re not watching it, but I’ve just smacked a bunch of them.

    #27 2 years ago