Nice mate might do this soon
Pelops,

There are guidelines you need to follow on the first page in order for the review to be posted

Battlefield 3 - Review

By: Polar Veyron (GT)

Intro: Set in 2014, Sgt. Blackburn leads a five-man squad on a mission to find and safely return a US squad investigating a possible IED in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, whose last known position was a market controlled by a hostile militia called the PLR. However an earthquake destroys the city during the firefight with the PLR. Blackburn escapes the ruins with Montes and other survivors. Several weeks later, the US sends Marines into Iran. Naval aviator and F-18 pilot Lt. Hawkins engages fighters over Iran and takes part in an air strike against Mehrabad Airport. In the aftermath of the air strikes, Blackburn and his squad are sent to Tehran to perform battle damage assessment and apprehend the leader of the PLR, Al-Bashir. While investigating an underground vault in the target's suspected location, Blackburn and his team learn that the PLR acquired Russian portable nuclear devices, and that two of the three devices are missing. Being overrun, and requesting back-up, an M1 Abrams convoy led by Sergeant Miller is deployed to extract Blackburn's team. Miller facilitates Blackburn's helicopter extraction, but is captured when waiting for a Quick Reaction Force. Miller is promptly executed by Solomon and Al-Bashir, with the event being filmed. Later, Blackburn and his squad manage to capture Al-Bashir, who realizes Solomon betrayed him and reveals his plot to detonate the nukes in Paris and New York, before dying from the wounds he sustained in his capture. Blackburn's team also gets a lead on an arms dealer, Kaffarov, who was working with Solomon; however, while pursuing Kaffarov, the Americans encounter a large Russian force, who are also attempting to apprehend Kaffarov and are hostile towards the Americans. Almost all of Blackburn's squad is killed, while a Spetsnaz team led by Dima assaults Kaffarov's villa. Dima successfully interrogates Kaffarov, and reveals Solomon's plot to Blackburn. Blackburn arrives at the villa and finds Dima and an unconscious Kaffarov. Dima tells Blackburn about the threat and asks for his cooperation to prevent a war between their nations. Meanwhile Blackburn's commanding officer arrives and Blackburn is forced to shoot his superior. Due to this, Blackburn is captured and interrogated by agents within the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and explains all of his previous operations to them in flashbacks. During Blackburn's capture, Dima attempts to stop the attack in Paris, but he is unsuccessful and his team is wounded in the resulting detonation. The CIA agents do not believe Blackburn's story, since Solomon is a CIA informant and since there is no concrete proof of his involvement in the terrorist attacks. They instead believe that Russia is responsible for the attacks and that Dima had played Blackburn. Left with no other option, Blackburn and surviving squad member Montes break out of captivity to stop the attack in New York. Montes is shot in the process but Blackburn manages to kill Solomon and recover the bomb. In the epilogue, having been diagnosed with radiation poisoning, Dima writes about the efforts of both him and Blackburn to stop Solomon's plot and prepares to shoot himself. However, a knock on his door prompts him to stop.

The Good: Battlefield 3 has many great things about it, there's great graphics, big teams, vehicles, big maps, etc. The picture and sound quality are amazing. They're really amazing if experienced using an HDTV with the 2 GB optics package installed and a good headset or sound system. But overall, they're amazing. The weapon selection is huge. There are many vehicles such as jets and tanks, which never hurts. The teams are huge and so are the maps. Like MW3, there is a DLC trail leading till the next successor. Also like CoD, EA/Dice offers a Battlelog service which is similar to Elite, but is free. You can start platoons, check stats, etc. Another great thing about BF3 is the attachment and Camo selection. There are many attachments and camos not found in the CoD franchise. And we can't forget dog tags; EA/Dice have created a CoD-similar way of customization, but if someone kills you with a knife, they get your tags. Thankfully not really, your tags just show up in the collection of dog tags they've gotten from knifing their enemies.

The Bad: While BF3 has many great innovations, with every up there is a down. For example, if you start a squad then join a match, it will separate your squad into different teams, which is annoying. And one of the worst things is the weapon damage. When you shoot somebody, it takes 2 clips to kill them, so good luck. And if you're a Battlefield Bad Company 2 Sniper, you're in bad luck. The bullet physics are very different in BF3. The gravity has been changed and it's hard to adjust to the new style. And we can't forget the tactical lights and lasers; these are unbelievably unfair. You get blinded if someone shines them in your face, so good luck getting that close range kill. And the campaign was a let down. It was short and boring. I'm used to the funny Bad Company Squad crackin jokes.

The Ugly: Now this is where it gets real bad. I'll start off with the servers; the BF3 servers are the worst of any game. You will be playing a game then you'll get kicked for no reason or half the time they lag. Whats really sad is when BF3 came out, we couldn't play online for the first two days! And if you play on a Rented server, some hosts will kick/ban you from their game for no reason. And the worst of all is the glitching. People will glitch in this game so bad it's not even funny. They use their MAVs to get on top of skyscrapers or they glitch on top of the map and shoot through walls. And EA/Dice takes forever to patch it. Another thing is the heli controls, if you've played Bad company 2, the helis are easy to fly; well not in BF3. The controls are mixed to where it's very hard to fly. Also, co-op was a let down. Just as MW2 spec ops was, co-op was bland and no fun at all. The missions were tough at times and the rewards were trashy guns for multiplayer. All-in-all, I was hoping for a perfect game from Dice, but I was wrong. Just as CoD, there's always something wrong, so you're better off to play something else.

My Rating: 6.8/10

My Opinion: The game is fun for about 10 minutes until you rage quit from the glitches, damage, lag, etc.
I would recommend this of you're the type who likes wide-scale vehicle warfare if you can deal with all the issues. You're better off to play Bad Company 2.

This was an agonizing game to play! The matchmaking services online were excruciating to go through, it takes you about 20 minutes to play a 3v3 game, where the other team disconnects 2 minutes into the game. And the campaign, oh the campaign! Not only did the opening scenes reveal a massive spoiler from Skyfall, which luckily I saw beforehand, but it was too Call of Duty like. There's not the James Bond feel to it, now I was playing it on 007 mode, and it was just a breeze! One simple tactic, take it slow...there was no James Bond skills involved to complete this, just FPS skills. This shows no relation to Skyfall in the title or description, so people may buy this thinking it's a general Bond game, but then BAM! Spoiler straight off the bat. All in all, I think I'd rather go back to Quantum of Solace. I'd definitely have to rate this a 2/10.

zxFaZeTrolling wrote

Click to View Content

Battlefield 3 - Review

By: Polar Veyron (GT)

Intro: Set in 2014, Sgt. Blackburn leads a five-man squad on a mission to find and safely return a US squad investigating a possible IED in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, whose last known position was a market controlled by a hostile militia called the PLR. However an earthquake destroys the city during the firefight with the PLR. Blackburn escapes the ruins with Montes and other survivors. Several weeks later, the US sends Marines into Iran. Naval aviator and F-18 pilot Lt. Hawkins engages fighters over Iran and takes part in an air strike against Mehrabad Airport. In the aftermath of the air strikes, Blackburn and his squad are sent to Tehran to perform battle damage assessment and apprehend the leader of the PLR, Al-Bashir. While investigating an underground vault in the target's suspected location, Blackburn and his team learn that the PLR acquired Russian portable nuclear devices, and that two of the three devices are missing. Being overrun, and requesting back-up, an M1 Abrams convoy led by Sergeant Miller is deployed to extract Blackburn's team. Miller facilitates Blackburn's helicopter extraction, but is captured when waiting for a Quick Reaction Force. Miller is promptly executed by Solomon and Al-Bashir, with the event being filmed. Later, Blackburn and his squad manage to capture Al-Bashir, who realizes Solomon betrayed him and reveals his plot to detonate the nukes in Paris and New York, before dying from the wounds he sustained in his capture. Blackburn's team also gets a lead on an arms dealer, Kaffarov, who was working with Solomon; however, while pursuing Kaffarov, the Americans encounter a large Russian force, who are also attempting to apprehend Kaffarov and are hostile towards the Americans. Almost all of Blackburn's squad is killed, while a Spetsnaz team led by Dima assaults Kaffarov's villa. Dima successfully interrogates Kaffarov, and reveals Solomon's plot to Blackburn. Blackburn arrives at the villa and finds Dima and an unconscious Kaffarov. Dima tells Blackburn about the threat and asks for his cooperation to prevent a war between their nations. Meanwhile Blackburn's commanding officer arrives and Blackburn is forced to shoot his superior. Due to this, Blackburn is captured and interrogated by agents within the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and explains all of his previous operations to them in flashbacks. During Blackburn's capture, Dima attempts to stop the attack in Paris, but he is unsuccessful and his team is wounded in the resulting detonation. The CIA agents do not believe Blackburn's story, since Solomon is a CIA informant and since there is no concrete proof of his involvement in the terrorist attacks. They instead believe that Russia is responsible for the attacks and that Dima had played Blackburn. Left with no other option, Blackburn and surviving squad member Montes break out of captivity to stop the attack in New York. Montes is shot in the process but Blackburn manages to kill Solomon and recover the bomb. In the epilogue, having been diagnosed with radiation poisoning, Dima writes about the efforts of both him and Blackburn to stop Solomon's plot and prepares to shoot himself. However, a knock on his door prompts him to stop.

The Good: Battlefield 3 has many great things about it, there's great graphics, big teams, vehicles, big maps, etc. The picture and sound quality are amazing. They're really amazing if experienced using an HDTV with the 2 GB optics package installed and a good headset or sound system. But overall, they're amazing. The weapon selection is huge. There are many vehicles such as jets and tanks, which never hurts. The teams are huge and so are the maps. Like MW3, there is a DLC trail leading till the next successor. Also like CoD, EA/Dice offers a Battlelog service which is similar to Elite, but is free. You can start platoons, check stats, etc. Another great thing about BF3 is the attachment and Camo selection. There are many attachments and camos not found in the CoD franchise. And we can't forget dog tags; EA/Dice have created a CoD-similar way of customization, but if someone kills you with a knife, they get your tags. Thankfully not really, your tags just show up in the collection of dog tags they've gotten from knifing their enemies.

The Bad: While BF3 has many great innovations, with every up there is a down. For example, if you start a squad then join a match, it will separate your squad into different teams, which is annoying. And one of the worst things is the weapon damage. When you shoot somebody, it takes 2 clips to kill them, so good luck. And if you're a Battlefield Bad Company 2 Sniper, you're in bad luck. The bullet physics are very different in BF3. The gravity has been changed and it's hard to adjust to the new style. And we can't forget the tactical lights and lasers; these are unbelievably unfair. You get blinded if someone shines them in your face, so good luck getting that close range kill. And the campaign was a let down. It was short and boring. I'm used to the funny Bad Company Squad crackin jokes.

The Ugly: Now this is where it gets real bad. I'll start off with the servers; the BF3 servers are the worst of any game. You will be playing a game then you'll get kicked for no reason or half the time they lag. Whats really sad is when BF3 came out, we couldn't play online for the first two days! And if you play on a Rented server, some hosts will kick/ban you from their game for no reason. And the worst of all is the glitching. People will glitch in this game so bad it's not even funny. They use their MAVs to get on top of skyscrapers or they glitch on top of the map and shoot through walls. And EA/Dice takes forever to patch it. Another thing is the heli controls, if you've played Bad company 2, the helis are easy to fly; well not in BF3. The controls are mixed to where it's very hard to fly. Also, co-op was a let down. Just as MW2 spec ops was, co-op was bland and no fun at all. The missions were tough at times and the rewards were trashy guns for multiplayer. All-in-all, I was hoping for a perfect game from Dice, but I was wrong. Just as CoD, there's always something wrong, so you're better off to play something else.

My Rating: 6.8/10

My Opinion: The game is fun for about 10 minutes until you rage quit from the glitches, damage, lag, etc.
I would recommend this of you're the type who likes wide-scale vehicle warfare if you can deal with all the issues. You're better off to play Bad Company 2.

That's a massive copy and paste!

Phyziculz wrote

Click to View Content

This was an agonizing game to play! The matchmaking services online were excruciating to go through, it takes you about 20 minutes to play a 3v3 game, where the other team disconnects 2 minutes into the game. And the campaign, oh the campaign! Not only did the opening scenes reveal a massive spoiler from Skyfall, which luckily I saw beforehand, but it was too Call of Duty like. There's not the James Bond feel to it, now I was playing it on 007 mode, and it was just a breeze! One simple tactic, take it slow...there was no James Bond skills involved to complete this, just FPS skills. This shows no relation to Skyfall in the title or description, so people may buy this thinking it's a general Bond game, but then BAM! Spoiler straight off the bat. All in all, I think I'd rather go back to Quantum of Solace. I'd definitely have to rate this a 2/10.

uh... what are you talkin about?

World Of Warcraft Mists of Pandaria Review


Game Information

Release Date: Tuesday, 25th September 2012
Developer(s): Blizzard Entertainment
Publisher(s): Blizzard Entertainment
Platforms: PC
Genre: MMORPG
Local Capabilities: 1 Player Online Only
Online Capabilities: Online Multiplayer 1 Per PC Per Account

Synopsis
Mists of Pandaria raised the existing level cap from level 85 to 90. It introduced a new character class, the Monk, along with a new playable race, the Pandaren. The vanity pet system was overhauled and added a pet battle system. New PVE scenarios were introduced, and Challenge Modes were added for dungeons. The existing 41-point talent trees were replaced by a new system of tiered talents that are awarded every 15 levels. There are nine new dungeons, three new raids, and two new battlegrounds(with another planned)

Gameplay
(Rating-9)
Battlegrounds And Arenas- You Can Play Against Other People. Depending On Skill And Gear Depends On How You Do.
Dungeons And Raids- Playing Against AI's Of Different Difficulties. This Is Where The Most People Tend To Play. There Is Two Modes Of Play Normal And Heroic. Heroic Tier Gear Would Be Greater Than The Normal Tier.
Questing- This Is Hands Down The Most Fun And Interesting Story Line For The World Of Warcraft Series. Many Quests That Will Keep You Entertained For Hours On End.


Graphics
(Rating-10)
The Graphics In MoP Are Unbelievable. You Can Enhance Them Even More With Better Graphics Cards Or Even From In Game


Controls
(Rating-6)
Controls Are A Bit Difficult To Learn If You Are New, But Can Easily Be Learned After Some Playing Time.

General Problems
- If Your On During High Points In The Day, Depending On Your Server, There Will Be Lag Spikes.


Overall Rating
9.3/10

==========Checkpoint==========

Far Cry 3 Review.
Game Information

Ubisoft Montreal
Additional work by:
Ubisoft Massive
Ubisoft Reflections
Ubisoft Shanghai
Ubisoft Red Storm
Publisher(s)Ubisoft
Producer(s)Dan Hay
Designer(s)Jamie Keen
Writer(s)Jeffrey Yohalem
Composer(s)Brian Tyler
Series: Far Cry
Engine: Dunia 2
Platform(s)Microsoft Windows
PlayStation 3
Xbox 360.

Synopsis:
Gameplay
Far cry 3 is a huge step up from its predecessor Far Cry 2,
Including improved stunning new graphics,
Larger sandbox map,
New physics,
Skill Tree,
With an island whats alive 24/7 with gunfights between the resistance and pirates
you will never get bored including side quests races, games lost stories you're bound to have a good time on this island.
You can choose what way you are Stealthy, Loud,Or a fire starter ;).
Also the wildlife is fantastic hunt for them to craft better objects to hold guns,money, ammo or sell them for cash.
Gameplay[10/10]
One of the best for a long time.

Graphics
The graphics are visually stunning the blue sky the water everything is so realistic its unbelievable,
[9.5/10]

Controls
The controls are easy to learn,
With a tutorial on how to perform certain actions,
[8/10]

Problems: There are some bugs however this can be very annoying e.g a guard was stuck in a rock and he could kill me but i couldn't touch him, There is also some unloaded textures if you look from a distance but this doesn't really affect the gameplay.

My overall rating for Far Cry 3 would be 9.8/10
The missing .2 is due to the bugs but im sure they can be fixed quite easily:

Thankyou for reading my review i hope you enjoyed it:)

Release Date: November 13 2012
Developers: Treyarch
Publishers: Activision
Platforms: Xbox 360, Playstation 3, PC, Wii U
Genre: First-person Shooter
Players: Single-player, Multiplayer, Co-op

Synopsis:

In the year 2025, a Special Forces unit led by David Mason with his partner, Harper, arrive at "The Vault", a secret location that is home to the aged Frank Woods, who they believe has information on the whereabouts of Raul Menendez. Woods admits that Menendez visited him, and gives Mason a locket that Menendez had left behind. Woods narrates all of the 1980s missions to David Mason. Source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

This synopsis generalizes what the Campaign is about. The Multiplayer doesn't seem too far into the future. In fact, the gameplay still has that old fashioned Treyarch feel while having a few new gadgets that make it seem futuristic.

Story(Rating: 8/10)

I've never been a huge fan of Call of Duty campaigns. The story never seems to interest me. After a few hours I find myself walking away during cut scenes. However, this campaign has to be one of the best in the Call of Duty series.

I couldn't say too much about the story itself, as I'm not even entirely finished the campaign. But the idea of completing missions in the past and present is a very good idea.
Woods narrates your missions and explains events that occurred which made Black Ops 2 even possible.

Some new features have been added. You can now customize your class before each mission, which in a sense could add more play ability to the campaign. There is also a set of missions that are available now that has you able to control a small group of soldiers from an aerial view to defend a location from attacks. While this seems like a great idea, personally it really didn't add much to the gameplay itself.

I found myself more aggravated then entertained during those missions because I could only control a group size that they allowed me to. The controls seemed incredibly rushed and made me stop to think about what the tutorial told me. Honestly, I can see the appeal it could have but I'm a Starcraft player, the whole RTS (Real time Strategy) addition to a Call of Duty game didn't seem to work incredibly well.

Overall explanation:

There wasn't really much of an appeal to me so far. The gameplay has been better then previous Call of Duty games. While the features were pretty amazing, the story itself failed to get me involved which caused me to feel like something was missing.

Overall Gameplay(8.5/10):

The gameplay of Black Ops 2 feels like every other Call of Duty but with a twist. Honestly, the only thing significantly new is the Pick 10 System. For those of you who don't know, the Pick 10 System gives you up to 10 "tokens" to use towards items to put on your class. The great part about this is it adds more of variety to classes you can make. However, it is essentially the same thing as before because a wildcard with another attachment or perk costs two total points.
Example:
MSMC with a silencer and EOTech (3 points)
Flak Jacket (1 point)
Cold Blooded (1 point)
Dead Silence (1 point)
B32R (1 point)
C4 (1 point)
Concussion ( 1 point)

This example class leaves you with 1 point left, you have a choice now. You can leave it like this, add an extra Concussion or remove something and add a wildcard. If you wanted to add a second first perk, you would first need to remove one extra point to buy the Wildcard and then your perk. While this may not seem like a huge deal, this could completely break your class if done wrong.

Multiplayer(9/10):

Since the campaign has already been discussed, I'll move onto the Multiplayer gameplay. Multiplayer seems like there was more time put into it then before. Guns seem incredibly balanced compared to previous series. However, Assault Rifles are clearly at a disadvantage in this title. The maps are incredibly close quartered which causes Sub machine Guns to be at a larger advantage.

Either way, most of the guns are equal. Like every other previous title there are certain guns and combinations that are completely over powered. Example is the PDW with the laser. This seems to be the favorite class of campers. This takes away the need to aim in maximizing the chance they have to stay alive especially with the PDW. The way guns seem to have been balanced is that each gun has a downside. The shotguns are mostly pump action which requires more time between shots, assault rifles are horrible in close range and the sub machine guns will lose at a far range compared to their assault rifle counterparts.

While the gameplay seems more balanced, the spawn system in certain gametypes is broken. Certain playlists are unable to be played alone or even in parties. I completely gave up on Demolition because I would join a game and get spawn killed by a shotgun almost instantly.

Zombies(9.5/10):

Personally, Zombies is by far my favorite in this game. With the introduction of Tranzit and Grief, the Zombies feels entirely redone. I was never a fan of Zombies in the previous installments but this time I find myself frequently getting sick of multiplayer and going into a Zombies match. There isn't a lot to say about Zombies in my opinion.


Graphics(7/10):

Honestly, the fact that the developers of Call of Duty admit that they haven't updated the engine used to make this game is horrible. The excuse used is that they update the lighting every so often. The graphics in my opinion is poor, they are hardly updated between each of the titles.

I honestly can understand why this is true, new Call of duty games come out so often that it wouldn't make sense to come out with extremely updated graphics each time. Eventually the engine would become completely useless and the graphics wouldn't be able to be updated much. This would be a bad business move as people would probably stop playing the game once the graphics felt exactly the same.

So the small amount of updates make sense. It's just saddening that the companies are that greedy. Otherwise, small upgrades exist and make Call of Duty look just enough better then the previous installments.


Overall:

While the game is a welcome addition to the Call of Duty franchise, it doesn't seem as new as it could. The lack of innovations in the game leave me wondering if I should have purchased Halo 4. The game still feels broken like every other Call of Duty at release. Should you purchase Black Ops 2? I couldn't give you a really good reason to purchase this game or even not to. I'm satisfied with my decision.

Rating: 8/10

Mimz wrote

Click to View Content

Release Date: November 13 2012
Developers: Treyarch
Publishers: Activision
Platforms: Xbox 360, Playstation 3, PC, Wii U
Genre: First-person Shooter
Players: Single-player, Multiplayer, Co-op

Synopsis:

In the year 2025, a Special Forces unit led by David Mason with his partner, Harper, arrive at "The Vault", a secret location that is home to the aged Frank Woods, who they believe has information on the whereabouts of Raul Menendez. Woods admits that Menendez visited him, and gives Mason a locket that Menendez had left behind. Woods narrates all of the 1980s missions to David Mason. Source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

This synopsis generalizes what the Campaign is about. The Multiplayer doesn't seem too far into the future. In fact, the gameplay still has that old fashioned Treyarch feel while having a few new gadgets that make it seem futuristic.

Story(Rating: 8/10)

I've never been a huge fan of Call of Duty campaigns. The story never seems to interest me. After a few hours I find myself walking away during cut scenes. However, this campaign has to be one of the best in the Call of Duty series.

I couldn't say too much about the story itself, as I'm not even entirely finished the campaign. But the idea of completing missions in the past and present is a very good idea.
Woods narrates your missions and explains events that occurred which made Black Ops 2 even possible.

Some new features have been added. You can now customize your class before each mission, which in a sense could add more play ability to the campaign. There is also a set of missions that are available now that has you able to control a small group of soldiers from an aerial view to defend a location from attacks. While this seems like a great idea, personally it really didn't add much to the gameplay itself.

I found myself more aggravated then entertained during those missions because I could only control a group size that they allowed me to. The controls seemed incredibly rushed and made me stop to think about what the tutorial told me. Honestly, I can see the appeal it could have but I'm a Starcraft player, the whole RTS (Real time Strategy) addition to a Call of Duty game didn't seem to work incredibly well.

Overall explanation:

There wasn't really much of an appeal to me so far. The gameplay has been better then previous Call of Duty games. While the features were pretty amazing, the story itself failed to get me involved which caused me to feel like something was missing.

Overall Gameplay(8.5/10):

The gameplay of Black Ops 2 feels like every other Call of Duty but with a twist. Honestly, the only thing significantly new is the Pick 10 System. For those of you who don't know, the Pick 10 System gives you up to 10 "tokens" to use towards items to put on your class. The great part about this is it adds more of variety to classes you can make. However, it is essentially the same thing as before because a wildcard with another attachment or perk costs two total points.
Example:
MSMC with a silencer and EOTech (3 points)
Flak Jacket (1 point)
Cold Blooded (1 point)
Dead Silence (1 point)
B32R (1 point)
C4 (1 point)
Concussion ( 1 point)

This example class leaves you with 1 point left, you have a choice now. You can leave it like this, add an extra Concussion or remove something and add a wildcard. If you wanted to add a second first perk, you would first need to remove one extra point to buy the Wildcard and then your perk. While this may not seem like a huge deal, this could completely break your class if done wrong.

Multiplayer(9/10):

Since the campaign has already been discussed, I'll move onto the Multiplayer gameplay. Multiplayer seems like there was more time put into it then before. Guns seem incredibly balanced compared to previous series. However, Assault Rifles are clearly at a disadvantage in this title. The maps are incredibly close quartered which causes Sub machine Guns to be at a larger advantage.

Either way, most of the guns are equal. Like every other previous title there are certain guns and combinations that are completely over powered. Example is the PDW with the laser. This seems to be the favorite class of campers. This takes away the need to aim in maximizing the chance they have to stay alive especially with the PDW. The way guns seem to have been balanced is that each gun has a downside. The shotguns are mostly pump action which requires more time between shots, assault rifles are horrible in close range and the sub machine guns will lose at a far range compared to their assault rifle counterparts.

While the gameplay seems more balanced, the spawn system in certain gametypes is broken. Certain playlists are unable to be played alone or even in parties. I completely gave up on Demolition because I would join a game and get spawn killed by a shotgun almost instantly.

Zombies(9.5/10):

Personally, Zombies is by far my favorite in this game. With the introduction of Tranzit and Grief, the Zombies feels entirely redone. I was never a fan of Zombies in the previous installments but this time I find myself frequently getting sick of multiplayer and going into a Zombies match. There isn't a lot to say about Zombies in my opinion.


Graphics(7/10):

Honestly, the fact that the developers of Call of Duty admit that they haven't updated the engine used to make this game is horrible. The excuse used is that they update the lighting every so often. The graphics in my opinion is poor, they are hardly updated between each of the titles.

I honestly can understand why this is true, new Call of duty games come out so often that it wouldn't make sense to come out with extremely updated graphics each time. Eventually the engine would become completely useless and the graphics wouldn't be able to be updated much. This would be a bad business move as people would probably stop playing the game once the graphics felt exactly the same.

So the small amount of updates make sense. It's just saddening that the companies are that greedy. Otherwise, small upgrades exist and make Call of Duty look just enough better then the previous installments.


Overall:

While the game is a welcome addition to the Call of Duty franchise, it doesn't seem as new as it could. The lack of innovations in the game leave me wondering if I should have purchased Halo 4. The game still feels broken like every other Call of Duty at release. Should you purchase Black Ops 2? I couldn't give you a really good reason to purchase this game or even not to. I'm satisfied with my decision.

Rating: 8/10

Sorry dude, has already been posted. You could leave your review as a comment here though

Right here