Call of Duty: Black Ops III's First Trailer Shows a Gritty, Cybernetic Future

[Steven Bogos]

Call of Duty: Black Ops III's First Trailer Shows a Gritty, Cybernetic Future

Call of Duty: Black Ops III will release for the PC, PS4 and Xbox One on November 6, 2015.

Another year, another Call of Duty. This year, it's a new title in the Black Ops sub-franchise - Call of Duty: Black Ops III [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/140414-Activision-And-Treyarch-Unveils-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-3-Teaser-Tailer]. Like Advanced Warfare before it, Black Ops III eschews the traditional gritty-realism modern warfare of the franchise for gritty-realism near-future warfare. Today, Activision has given us a glimpse into the game with its first official trailer, as well as revealing some more information on the title's launch and beta.

First, check out the trailer to the right, which sets the scene for the game with Paint it Black by The Rolling Stones accompanying images of soldiers becoming more and more cybernetically augmented to the point that their very humanity is being questioned. Sounds a bit like something I've played before... [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/deus%20ex%20human%20revolution?os=deus+ex+human+revolution].

Next, Activision confirmed that the game would be launching on November 6 this year, for the PS4, Xbox One and PC. There will also be an open multiplayer beta for all three platforms that players can join simply by pre-ordering the game, although no date was announced for it.

We also learned a little bit about some changes to the game's multiplayer, with the major one being that Team Fortress 2 or Battlefield 4-style "classes" are used in place of the generic solider. Each class will have its own special ability and unique weapons.

So there you go! It won't be too long now before you'll get to play the next installment of the Madden of multiplayer shooters!

Source: Activision [https://www.callofduty.com/blackops3/media/reveal-trailer]

Permalink

 

[dragongit]

I... oh whats the point... I'm too depressed with the cancellation of Silent Hills, and the Valve paid mods, to make a snarkey comment about another Call of Duty game coming out.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I never thought I'd see the day where a Call of Duty title was more like Battlefront than Battlefront.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Call of Duty: Deus Titan Crysis Warfare

I have never seen this many ideas and mechanics crammed into a game. It will be interesting to see how they implement classes though.

Oh, and while I'm not all about dat grafix, this game looks horrible. Maybe it's just my player resolution, but it looks exactly the same as BLOPS 2. Meh. Considering the plethora of hopefully amazing games coming out this year, CoD has the lowest priority. This game will be lost in the tide of Arkham Knight, Just Cause 3, Battlefront, Mad Max, The Division, etc.

I never thought I'd see the day where a Call of Duty title was more like Battlefront than Battlefront.

Because of the classes?

Oh, and while we're talking about CoD and Battlefront, did you hear the news that Heroes are essentially killstreaks that can be activated anywhere? Yeah, you can play as Boba Fett in Hoth. Whoever thought of that genius idea needs to jump down the Sarlacc.

 

[DerangedHobo]

What happens when the soldier becomes the weapon?

You get a better soldier? I've never seen so much pseudo-philosophical bullshit crammed into one trailer, apart from maybe the teaser trailer. You can't pull the "war is hell, technology will destroy us" shit in a trailer with a minigun arm and a zombie at the end, not unless you're going to go full Spec Ops: The Line here (Which I'd be all for seeing).

Aside from the fact that from the teaser trailer they seemed to completely copy the main themes (and even execution) of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, both of the BO3 trailers seem to be hinging on the idea that 'humanity' comes from being a fleshy meat bag and being AUGMENTED will turn you into a sociopathic fuckwit. I mean, Deus Ex: HR brought up the same thing but at least they fleshed it out a bit.

 

[Jsan the Candyman]

I may have a lack of knowledge of pre-turn-of-the-century music due to my age, but weren't the Stones anti-war? I know they're British, but they were around during the Vietnam conflict. If so, isn't it ironic to use one of their songs for a COD game?

 

[UberPubert]

I'm totally on board with "Call of Duty: Near Future Warfare". The biggest complaint I've ever leveled at the series is that it got stale because the gameplay didn't evolve in any meaningful way out of some half-hearted adherence to authenticity (but not realism).

By all means, bring on the Dues Ex augmentations, bring on the Titanfall parkour, anything to make the game more fun - even if it's ripping stuff off.

I may have a lack of knowledge of pre-turn-of-the-century music due to my age, but weren't the Stones anti-war? I know they're British, but they were around during the Vietnam conflict. If so, isn't it ironic to use one of their songs for a COD game?

Not really. Basically every call of duty game after the WW2 ones framed war as a bad thing.

Even in this very trailer the narrator is warning against the danger of augmented warfare, same as BLOPs 2 warned against drone warfare.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Not really. Basically every call of duty game after the WW2 ones framed war as a bad thing.

Even in this very trailer the narrator is warning against the danger of augmented warfare, same as BLOPs 2 warned against drone warfare.

This point has been made before but it's pretty on-point:

There's a dissonance that occurs in a game that is trying to paint warfare as a bad thing while simultaneously rewarding you with over the top, "in your face" point awards and "kill streaks"

Also the captcha is fucking with me: "history repeats itself"

 

[Glaice]

Seems a lot like Advanced Warfare with the Deus Ex: HR aesthetic theme going on.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

As with every other Cod game I certainly won't be buying it, much less pre-ordering it, but it does at least look significantly more interesting than contemporary warfare.

How far can we push technology ... before it starts pushing back?

I do hope they aren't going for the whole "technology became so advanced that it became sentient and turned on us" plot. If so, then fuck right off. Unless they are putting a really original spin on it, then this shit has been mined for all it's worth by virtually every other sci-fi story.

If they are playing this generic sci-fi plot without any original spin, then I would be a lot more merciful if the trailer wasn't so far up it's own arse with how deep and philosophical it seems to think it's being.

 

[UberPubert]

This point has been made before but it's pretty on-point:

There's a dissonance that occurs in a game that is trying to paint warfare as a bad thing while simultaneously rewarding you with over the top, "in your face" point awards and "kill streaks"

Also the captcha is fucking with me: "history repeats itself"

Sure? But shouldn't we be able to accept the writer's portrayal of war as bad and treat the multiplayer as a separate entity that people play for fun or competition?

You point out Spec Ops: The Line as a game able to say "war is hell, technology will destroy us" but the promotional material for that game was almost entirely about over the top turret sections, cover systems, and "ooh, look at the sand" physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIoJnMT3yUI

Should we disregard it as well?

 

[Sniper Team 4]

First the good:
Actually looks like a fun Call of Duty game. That could be because I'm biased toward Treyarch, but I saw huge battles, lots of explosions, nice set pieces, and basically stuff that I find enjoyable in a single player campaign. Basically, you are a random soldier dropped into a huge fire fight, not some elite special guy who gets things done solo behind the scenes.

Bad, or at least cause for worry:
There were a few shots were it looked like you were running around with a squad. Squad tends to indicate that squad cannot be killed, and thus it's just going to be you and your small team against armies. I don't want that. I'm so tired of being the only person on the field, or just me and two or three other guys. I want to be part of an army. See above.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Sure? But shouldn't we be able to accept the writer's portrayal of war as bad and treat the multiplayer as a separate entity that people play for fun or competition?

You point out Spec Ops: The Line as a game able to point out "war is hell, technology will destroy us" but the promotional material for that game was almost entirely about over the top turret sections, cover systems, and "ooh, look at the sand" physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIoJnMT3yUI

Should we disregard it as well?

That's why I said "unless they go full Spec Ops: The Line". In other words, intentionally selling the game as a generic shooter and then turning that into a 'war is hell' story. That was an intentional move by the devs, they were no contradictory elements, one was used to re-enforce the other.

But shouldn't we be able to accept the writer's portrayal of war as bad and treat the multiplayer as a separate entity that people play for fun or competition?

No, that would be having your cake and eating it too. Spec Ops: The Line would of been completely undermined if it had a multiplayer which was just a generic shooter. It's like watching Full Metal Jacket with recruitment propaganda thrown in every 5 minutes un-ironically. The multiplayer and singleplayer do not exist in a vacuum, they affect and feed off of one another. It's the same principal as ludo-narrative dissonance, a serious story with the game play aspect completely undermining the former.

But, if the game was self aware about how ludicrous having a 'serious' anti-war campaign tied with a pro-violence/warfare multiplayer and actively mocked/conveyed that to the player that would be different. I'd even argue that doing so (provided the execution was solid) might even redeem Call of Duty as a series.

 

[debtcollector]

Sure? But shouldn't we be able to accept the writer's portrayal of war as bad and treat the multiplayer as a separate entity that people play for fun or competition?

You point out Spec Ops: The Line as a game able to point out "war is hell, technology will destroy us" but the promotional material for that game was almost entirely about over the top turret sections, cover systems, and "ooh, look at the sand" physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIoJnMT3yUI

Should we disregard it as well?

No and yes.

To address your last point first, I believe that you can and should disregard whatever tone is set forth by any game's marketing department. Look at Dead Island. Look at Spec Ops: The Line. The marketing department cares about what will get attention, not about what it's necessarily like.

As for your former point, I don't know if it's so easy to separate the "war is bad" single-player narrative from the "war is fun" multiplayer experience. Yes, multiplayer is a separate thing, but its existence as something that more or less glorifies war would devalue any attached single-player campaign that tries to say that war is hell. A game that tries to make the player think about the consequences of war while at the same time allowing them to blast away at enemies for points and fun without any consequences whatsoever seems to be having its cake and eating it, too. It could probably be done well, but I'd wait for the final product. I'm skeptical about it here.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

First the good:
Actually looks like a fun Call of Duty game. That could be because I'm biased toward Treyarch, but I saw huge battles, lots of explosions, nice set pieces, and basically stuff that I find enjoyable in a single player campaign. Basically, you are a random soldier dropped into a huge fire fight, not some elite special guy who gets things done solo behind the scenes.

Bad, or at least cause for worry:
There were a few shots were it looked like you were running around with a squad. Squad tends to indicate that squad cannot be killed, and thus it's just going to be you and your small team against armies. I don't want that. I'm so tired of being the only person on the field, or just me and two or three other guys. I want to be part of an army. See above.

Uh it's called "Black Ops". You play as the leader of an elite Black Ops squad. There will only one playable character and three or four other squadmates that you will play with for the rest of the game. One cool aspect though is that you can now create your own character. No more white dudes shooting brown people! Unless, you know, you want to.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

First the good:
Actually looks like a fun Call of Duty game. That could be because I'm biased toward Treyarch, but I saw huge battles, lots of explosions, nice set pieces, and basically stuff that I find enjoyable in a single player campaign. Basically, you are a random soldier dropped into a huge fire fight, not some elite special guy who gets things done solo behind the scenes.

Bad, or at least cause for worry:
There were a few shots were it looked like you were running around with a squad. Squad tends to indicate that squad cannot be killed, and thus it's just going to be you and your small team against armies. I don't want that. I'm so tired of being the only person on the field, or just me and two or three other guys. I want to be part of an army. See above.

Uh it's called "Black Ops". You play as the leader of an elite Black Ops squad. There will only one playable character and three or four other squadmates that you will play with for the rest of the game. One cool aspect though is that you can now create your own character. No more white dudes shooting brown people! Unless, you know, you want to.

The previous two games were called "Black Ops" as well and yet still managed to make you part of huge fire fights. Yes, there were the solo, small team insertion missions, but a lot of the time you were just part of the army, not the whole army. Heck, the final level in Black Ops II had you sky diving in with the entire U.S. army. It wasn't until the very end of the level that you were buy yourself. The rest of the time, you were just part of the army.

The character customization sounds cool though. That could be a nice touch.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

First the good:
Actually looks like a fun Call of Duty game. That could be because I'm biased toward Treyarch, but I saw huge battles, lots of explosions, nice set pieces, and basically stuff that I find enjoyable in a single player campaign. Basically, you are a random soldier dropped into a huge fire fight, not some elite special guy who gets things done solo behind the scenes.

Bad, or at least cause for worry:
There were a few shots were it looked like you were running around with a squad. Squad tends to indicate that squad cannot be killed, and thus it's just going to be you and your small team against armies. I don't want that. I'm so tired of being the only person on the field, or just me and two or three other guys. I want to be part of an army. See above.

Uh it's called "Black Ops". You play as the leader of an elite Black Ops squad. There will only one playable character and three or four other squadmates that you will play with for the rest of the game. One cool aspect though is that you can now create your own character. No more white dudes shooting brown people! Unless, you know, you want to.

The previous two games were called "Black Ops" as well and yet still managed to make you part of huge fire fights. Yes, there were the solo, small team insertion missions, but a lot of the time you were just part of the army, not the whole army. Heck, the final level in Black Ops II had you sky diving in with the entire U.S. army. It wasn't until the very end of the level that you were buy yourself. The rest of the time, you were just part of the army.

The character customization sounds cool though. That could be a nice touch.

Oh, I didn't actually play the other games so I wouldn't know.

But BO3 will definitely be nothing like what you want, or at least most of it won't. From what I heard, the story starts out with you investigating a CIA site that's gone dark. It's just you and your mates. Oh well, I do miss the "army" feeling.

 

[UberPubert]

That's why I said "unless they go full Spec Ops: The Line". In other words, intentionally selling the game as a generic shooter and then turning that into a 'war is hell' story. That was an intentional move by the devs, they were no contradictory elements, one was used to re-enforce the other.

In the trailer you can see the player is being chastised for their actions and the player character is being visibly damaged as time goes on and mention of "the line" being crossed. This is divided between glamor shots of helicopters crashing exploding and an advertisement for the AA12 shotgun, sheer gun porn to the average observer. It is blatant on both counts.

No, that would be having your cake and eating it too. Spec Ops: The Line would of been completely undermined if it had a multiplayer which was just a generic shooter.

It does. Spec Ops: The Line comes with a competitive and co-operative multiplayer game mode.

It's like watching Full Metal Jacket with recruitment propaganda thrown in every 5 minutes un-ironically.

In what universe are you switching between single player and multiplayer modes every five minutes?

The multiplayer and singleplayer do not exist in a vacuum, they affect and feed off of one another.

I think "does not exist in a vacuum" is becoming my most hated term of all time. Context; the game does not exist without context. How much you decide to add to that "context" is entirely up to you. On top of including a pointless competitive multiplayer mode Spec Ops: The Line was developed by Yager entertainment who, at present, is creating Dead Island 2: The follow-up to dead island one, which was basically a first person RPG featuring fictional rapper Sam B as a playable character who, in the opening of the game, performs the original song "Who do you voodoo *****." Spec Ops: The Line was also published by 2k games, who were responsible for funding such treasures as Duke Nukem Forever.

When I consider that context, Spec Ops: The Line looks less like a serious war drama with parallels to the heart of darkness, apocalypse now and indeed full metal jacket, and more like a mad cash grab from an up and coming studio working for a now defunct publisher who thought nothing of plastering their name on tasteless trash.

It's the same principal as ludo-narrative dissonance, a serious story with the game play aspect completely undermining the former.

Ludo-narrative dissonance in video games is a crock. In any game where the player is given freedom they can decide to use a gameplay feature to undermine a serious story. If I decide to walk my player character straight into a wall, or to throw grenades at their feet, or rush headlong into enemy fire and die - heck, even the simple mechanic that is player failure resulting in death - breaks the narrative. There are degrees, certainly, but you began by arguing that multiplayer undermined singeplayer, which isn't just conflating mechanics but entirely separate styles of play.

But, if the game was self aware about how ludicrous having a 'serious' anti-war campaign tied with a pro-violence/warfare multiplayer and actively mocked/conveyed that to the player that would be different. I'd even argue that doing so (provided the execution was solid) might even redeem Call of Duty as a series.

I present to you the secret ending of BLOPs 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i8vKnaVj1Q&feature=youtu.be&t=5s

Nobody can take the piss out of call of duty better than call of duty.

The series has been hovering around semi-seriousness since it's inception, obviously handling dark subject matter since it's WW2 days but not shying away from showing off advancements in the technology or adding conventional gameplay features like challenges and hidden items, but they've been smart enough to keep multiplayer elements and extra features effectively cordoned off from single player campaigns without sacrificing an experience people would actually like to have.