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

[Evonisia]

Boo-urns! Boo-urns!

God why? It looked a bit nifty at the start, then the totally-not-EXOs showed up. Black Ops II went to lengths to differentiate itself, but nothing thus far is giving me a good impression (sans the hand turning into a gun part which probably won't be different gameplay but it looks cool).

 

[UberPubert]

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.

Agreed

So, why the negative reaction when all we have so far is a trailer?

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.

Like I said to the other poster, spec ops the line does have multiplayer, competitive and co-op. Spec Ops the line has cathartic sections where you blow stuff up or sit in a turret and blow people away with impunity. Anyone who knows what the game is trying to say in the end is willing and eager to point out that it's using those situations to make a point, so why doesn't this apply to call of duty?

 

[Bindal]

Honestly, going with that AND the rumors of 4-player-coop for the campaign, leveling and classes for Zombies (and of course the confirmation of zombies - meaning MORE zombies)... Yeah, I'm hooked. Second CoD I am going to pre-order, potentially. Certainly going to buy it. (Last one was Black Ops 2 for basically the same reasons)

 

[DerangedHobo]

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.

Pretty sure that was intentional, again, relating back to the 'big twist' of the game.

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

Wow that's... that's something special, didn't even know. Why the fuck would they do that?

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

Never said you were but the analogy was meant to display the horrific changes in tones and themes that the two modes existing side by side would have.

Context; the game does not exist without context. How much you decide to add to that "context" is entirely up to you.

Oh you can pretend that multiplayer doesn't exist but it's still there, as part of the package.

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.

I have no idea where you're going with this, are you trying to discredit someone's work by something else they did after that? That's a moot point, Sam B is not in Spec Ops: The Line.

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.

Couldn't agree more, in light of the multiplayer anyway.

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.

I wasn't directly claiming Ludonarrative Dissonance, just saying that the same sort of disconnect there applies to Black Ops trying to go 'war is hell' while having the same dumb multiplayer.

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.

A 5 minutes "Silent Hill Alien Ending"? This is the great satire? This is their attempt at self-ridicule? Colour me unimpressed.

The series has been hovering around semi-seriousness since it's inception, obviously handling dark subject matter since it's WW2 days

With all the grace, respect and effectiveness as someone moshing in a cemetery.

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.

I haven't seen enough since World At War to warrant ever claiming Treyarch a decent company, at least Advanced Warfare, train wreck that it was, had plastic Spacey and some exo-skeletons. Maybe not-Deus Ex is a step in the right direction but it's too little too late at this point.

 

[Dalisclock]

Hard to tell much from the trailer and we're still a good 5 months out from the actual game being out. I will wait until the game comes out and the reviews drop before making any decisions.

Crazy, I know.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'm too depressed with the cancellation of Silent Hills

Wait.... what?!?!?! That teaser demo was the scariest thing I've played! Why would they do this?!

OT: The robots reminded me a lot of the ones from Elysium. Also, from someone who hasn't played a CoD since MW3 (and fuck did I hate it), this actually looks kind of fun. Colour me ever so slightly interested.

 

[josemlopes]

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.

Pretty sure that was intentional, again, relating back to the 'big twist' of the game.

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

Wow that's... that's something special, didn't even know. Why the fuck would they do that?

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

Never said you were but the analogy was meant to display the horrific changes in tones and themes that the two modes existing side by side would have.

Context; the game does not exist without context. How much you decide to add to that "context" is entirely up to you.

Oh you can pretend that multiplayer doesn't exist but it's still there, as part of the package.

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.

I have no idea where you're going with this, are you trying to discredit someone's work by something else they did after that? That's a moot point, Sam B is not in Spec Ops: The Line.

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.

Couldn't agree more, in light of the multiplayer anyway.

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.

I wasn't directly claiming Ludonarrative Dissonance, just saying that the same sort of disconnect there applies to Black Ops trying to go 'war is hell' while having the same dumb multiplayer.

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.

A 5 minutes "Silent Hill Alien Ending"? This is the great satire? This is their attempt at self-ridicule? Colour me unimpressed.

The series has been hovering around semi-seriousness since it's inception, obviously handling dark subject matter since it's WW2 days

With all the grace, respect and effectiveness as someone moshing in a cemetery.

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.

I haven't seen enough since World At War to warrant ever claiming Treyarch a decent company, at least Advanced Warfare, train wreck that it was, had plastic Spacey and some exo-skeletons. Maybe not-Deus Ex is a step in the right direction but it's too little too late at this point.

Its popular therefore its shit, am I right?

So far you have been way to misinformed where you dont even know what the Call of Duty games actually have or even the games you like like Spec Ops The Line.

Call of Duty games are usually very samey and are certainly coming way too often then they should but they do usually have some cool things in them. I still think the BLOPS 2 campaign has the best multiple ending/choices system as it is subtle but yet important to the story.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Boo-urns! Boo-urns!

God why? It looked a bit nifty at the start, then the totally-not-EXOs showed up. Black Ops II went to lengths to differentiate itself, but nothing thus far is giving me a good impression (sans the hand turning into a gun part which probably won't be different gameplay but it looks cool).

We wont actually have boost jumps, the "thruster" jumps will make you slower. They function almost exactly like the EXOs, but a lot slower, and you can control how high/far you can go. It's basically a very slow jet pack.

 

[UberPubert]

Pretty sure that was intentional, again, relating back to the 'big twist' of the game.

It's really not that big of a twist though, those things still happen in the game. It's still delivering a glorified health regenerating, kill counter breaking shoot-em-up that every other generic shooter on the market was offering. It also included a story about a character's descent into madness and regret over their actions, but it doesn't change the fact the game advertises on third person cover shootbangs and delivers, at length.

Wow that's... that's something special, didn't even know. Why the fuck would they do that?

The easy answer is money. Multiplayer is known to extend the life of game and in so doing remain in the player's consciousness, which makes them more pliable to buying future installments. I have no idea if they intended to have future installments of spec ops, the mode might have been added due to publisher pressure, but we'll never find out considering how poorly the game sold.

Nevertheless, it's there, points and rank-ups for head-shots and multi-kills included: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX8NRbt0Cag

Never said you were but the analogy was meant to display the horrific changes in tones and themes that the two modes existing side by side would have.

They don't co-exist in any other form than being on the same disc. Similar locations, props and names are used in multiplayer and singleplayer but that's where the similarities end.

I have no idea where you're going with this, are you trying to discredit someone's work by something else they did after that? That's a moot point, Sam B is not in Spec Ops: The Line.

My point is if you stop to consider the entire context, a game trying to tell people "war is bad, you shouldn't be making games out of it" seems less genuine when the developer makes games and jokes out of war and violence and death while being funded by publishers who bankroll even more games about war and violence and death.

You can either just take the game as it is, or accept that nearly everyone is having their cake and stuffing their face in one way or another.

I wasn't directly claiming Ludonarrative Dissonance, just saying that the same sort of disconnect there applies to Black Ops trying to go 'war is hell' while having the same dumb multiplayer.

War is hell, as portrayed in BLOPS, but multiplayer is not an attempt to portray war. It's a tournament first person shooter combat as old as Quake; that it happens to share disc-space with a campaign narrative that has the player character actively fighting to prevent a war (and indeed hunt down war criminals) is not undermined.

A 5 minutes "Silent Hill Alien Ending"? This is the great satire? This is their attempt at self-ridicule? Colour me unimpressed.

It fits your criteria. It's self-aware, knows how ludicrous it is, and has the balls to do it anyway.

With all the grace, respect and effectiveness as someone moshing in a cemetery.

The games set in WW2 and the first modern warfare actually did handle the material well. Afterwards, the franchise exploded in popularity, and that's why Modern Warfare 2 goes straight up Red Dawn. Still not without their relevant commentary, call of duty has still consistently cast instigators of war as villains - including the US general who was behind it.

I haven't seen enough since World At War to warrant ever claiming Treyarch a decent company, at least Advanced Warfare, train wreck that it was, had plastic Spacey and some exo-skeletons. Maybe not-Deus Ex is a step in the right direction but it's too little too late at this point.

Advanced Warfare was made by Sledgehammer Games, who aren't affiliated with Treyarch, so I wouldn't base my expectations on that. I can't determine how much of what was in the BLOPS3 trailer is gameplay or cinematics but the technology for what's being suggested is at least present in existing games. The actual quality of the narrative is anyone's guess at this point but I'm getting less Human Revolution vibes and more of a repeat of BLOPS2, which is disheartening.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Hopefully they also pushed the technology and storytelling beyond the linear corridor crap of Advanced Warfare.

If they did, it might get interesting.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

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

In the Dark Douls/Bloodborne universe...s? Tee hee! Ok, in all seriousness, you have said what I wanted to say in a much better way. So I can't really elaborate much. Only to say that multiplayer has always felt like a huge disconnect to pretty much all games, personally. Even the almost seamless multiplayer of Bloodborne, turn the game from an atmosphere of dread, horror and difficulty...to one of relief, humour and often pity, as a jolly human shield co-operator pulls a silly suicidal maneuver after a lengthy run of jolly murder. So the disconnect is just there inherently.
Also Spec Ops did have a point based multiplayer with a levelling up system that rewards with more gun and armor unlocks, sooo there's that.

OT: Oh I forgot about the annual COD. With phantom pain and Arkham Knight AND Mad Max, it may be tricky to fit it in. But seeing as it will probably be just a weekend of my life, shouldn't be too much hassle I guess.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

What? Another dooble post? This damn phone...

 

[MysticSlayer]

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"

That's not really a point against the game. Even if you could apply this just to singleplayer (which your example doesn't), a lot of art uses dissonance to intentionally draw attention to the fact that something isn't right.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Its popular therefore its shit, am I right?

You do know that Spec Ops: The Line had everyone and their fucking dog clambering over it, talking about how it was a deep, original 'war is hell' story, right?

And no, it's shit because it hasn't done anything effective or meaningful with the franchise. Take World at War and compare them to everything up to Advanced Warfare. It's been, what, over 10 fucking games and it ain't done shit.

So far you have been way to misinformed where you dont even know what the Call of Duty games actually have or even the games you like like Spec Ops The Line.

That'll be because I've never played Spec Ops: The Line nor Call of Duty (past MW3, anyway) but from what I've seen (which I assure you, is quite a bit, against my better judgement) I can make an educated guess about the next iteration.

Edit: I fucked up the quoting.

 

[DerangedHobo]

That's not really a point against the game. Even if you could apply this just to singleplayer (which your example doesn't), a lot of art uses dissonance to intentionally draw attention to the fact that something isn't right.

But at what point has the Call of Duty franchise implied that the dissonance was meaningful or used it intentionally?

It's really not that big of a twist though, those things still happen in the game. It's still delivering a glorified health regenerating, kill counter breaking shoot-em-up that every other generic shooter on the market was offering. It also included a story about a character's descent into madness and regret over their actions, but it doesn't change the fact the game advertises on third person cover shootbangs and delivers, at length.

I assumed that the shootbangs were to add to the ending of the game and to prolong the subterfuge, after all, the gaming mechanics were stock at best. That could either imply laziness, poor budget or that money was funneled elsewhere.

Nevertheless, it's there, points and rank-ups for head-shots and multi-kills included: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX8NRbt0Cag

And who ever said art wasn't dead?

They don't co-exist in any other form than being on the same disc. Similar locations, props and names are used in multiplayer and singleplayer but that's where the similarities end.

But they are still a part of the same media, they may not interact directly but it is still within the same package and money was still funneled into making that multiplayer mode.

My point is if you stop to consider the entire context, a game trying to tell people "war is bad, you shouldn't be making games out of it" seems less genuine when the developer makes games and jokes out of war and violence and death while being funded by publishers who bankroll even more games about war and violence and death.

Everyone has to earn a paycheck but I will give you that. I will also bring up the fact that if we are to go this far down the line, from media to developer, then we also have to look at the fact that anything being sold is also pro-capitalism and oh boy is that a bigger leviathan than war is.

You can either just take the game as it is, or accept that nearly everyone is having their cake and stuffing their face in one way or another.

I accept the latter with the addition of bitching about it just that bit more and shaking my fist at the sky about how everyone is a sellout hack and art is dead.

War is hell, as portrayed in BLOPS, but multiplayer is not an attempt to portray war. It's a tournament first person shooter combat as old as Quake; that it happens to share disc-space with a campaign narrative that has the player character actively fighting to prevent a war (and indeed hunt down war criminals) is not undermined.

But both sides have real life names and insignias as well as realistic weaponry and items used in warfare. It is, for all intents and purposes, simulating warfare and rewarding you for it. It's like if you made Johnny Got His Gun into a game and then had a johnny player model running around killing people.

It fits your criteria. It's self-aware, knows how ludicrous it is, and has the balls to do it anyway.

I mean it shows some self awareness but having it as a secret ending lasting 5 minutes just seems so neutered to me, it pulled it's punches. It didn't change anything, it didn't engage the viewer it just sort of threw shit at a wall.

call of duty has still consistently cast instigators of war as villains - including the US general who was behind it.

But it still glorifies fighting against an oppressor, being that lone bad-ass, the underdog fighting against tyranny when in reality war isn't like that. I obviously don't speak from experience but I can make an educated guess that it is in fact hell and regardless of whether you're the 'bad' guy or you're fighting the 'bad' guy, no one gets out unscathed. It seems like one big propaganda recruitment series meant to glorify the fighting and the bloodshed because it's "for a good cause".

Advanced Warfare was made by Sledgehammer Games, who aren't affiliated with Treyarch, so I wouldn't base my expectations on that.

Oh, I understood that, it just seemed like Advanced Warfare tried to make the most brazen (regardless of whether or not it succeeded) change in regards to gameplay etc.

I can't determine how much of what was in the BLOPS3 trailer is gameplay or cinematics but the technology for what's being suggested is at least present in existing games. The actual quality of the narrative is anyone's guess at this point but I'm getting less Human Revolution vibes and more of a repeat of BLOPS2, which is disheartening.

I mean I really don't have a problem with Call of Duty taking on transhumanism (fuck it, outright copy the premise of human revolution) but I feel it will just be watered down with some dumb "BUT AT WHAT COSSSSST" sort of message. I'm a fucking idiot and I can see how distasteful and dumb that is.

 

[MysticSlayer]

That's not really a point against the game. Even if you could apply this just to singleplayer (which your example doesn't), a lot of art uses dissonance to intentionally draw attention to the fact that something isn't right.

But at what point has the Call of Duty franchise implied that the dissonance was meaningful or used it intentionally?

Well first we actually have to point out dissonance in CoD. As I mentioned, you can't just throw in the multiplayer and act like that is relevant to anything the singleplayer may say. The singleplayer is an interactive story that follows characters, a fictional conflict, and a commentary. The multiplayer is a competitive game that's basically a virtual form of paintball with no story outside of what you tell your friends you did while eating lunch together.

But I guess if you could bring up an example that stays within the singleplayer, we could talk about it, but I don't have time right now to go through every potential plot point of all the CoD games (or at least CoD4-MW2 since those are the three I'm most familiar with) when 90% of them may not be relevant to what you are talking about.

 

[K12]

I really like dark disturbing and cynical science-fiction and fantasy. So why do I always sigh with disappointment whenever I see the word "gritty" describing a science-fiction or fantasy video game?

 

[josemlopes]

Its popular therefore its shit, am I right?

You do know that Spec Ops: The Line had everyone and their fucking dog clambering over it, talking about how it was a deep, original 'war is hell' story, right?

And no, it's shit because it hasn't done anything effective or meaningful with the franchise. Take World at War and compare them to everything up to Advanced Warfare. It's been, what, over 10 fucking games and it ain't done shit.

So far you have been way to misinformed where you dont even know what the Call of Duty games actually have or even the games you like like Spec Ops The Line.

That'll be because I've never played Spec Ops: The Line nor Call of Duty (past MW3, anyway) but from what I've seen (which I assure you, is quite a bit, against my better judgement) I can make an educated guess about the next iteration.

Edit: I fucked up the quoting.

So you never played them and yet you do think that you know it better from someone who did. As I said before BLOPS 2 did player choice and multiple endings really well, here, have a chart, its a lot better then Mass "all your decisions mean shit, pick a color" Effect, a game where that was the main feature.

Spoiler

The image becomes tiny so if you actually want to read it go here:
http://images.wikia.com/callofduty/images/2/25/Choices_in_Black_Ops_II.png

The series for some time (after the first BLOPS, I think) has had bots for multiplayer, something that a lot of games dont, and they are very nice to play with, not on the level of an actual human but still competent enough to keep someone that doesnt play online entertained.

Advanced Warfare actually had some unique elements to multiplayer borrowed from Unreal like dodges and double jumps, when was the last time that was in a multiplayer FPS?

Ghosts was simply put, shit. There is nothing good about that one.


For BLOPS 3 I am kind of disapointed that they are taking way too much from Titanfall, if I wanted to play Titanfall I would play it (its a good game but to have different games do the same isnt very interesting) but it still has some interesting features going on.


So yeah, you are still misinformed, and the fact that you didnt played any of these games but instead watched "quite a bit" doesnt help your case at all.

Thats like me accusing you of not paying attention while reading a book and your response being that you didnt read it, you just skimmed through it. Its worse.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Surprised nobody said this before:
I DEFINITELY did not ask for this.

 

[DerangedHobo]

So you never played them and yet you do think that you know it better from someone who did. As I said before BLOPS 2 did player choice and multiple endings really well, here, have a chart, its a lot better then Mass "all your decisions mean shit, pick a color" Effect, a game where that was the main feature.

Spoiler

The image becomes tiny so if you actually want to read it go here:
http://images.wikia.com/callofduty/images/2/25/Choices_in_Black_Ops_II.png

I will concede the point that I am ignorant about various aspects of the Call of Duty franchise, half played, half viewed but I have to question this hard on for "player choice", as if a game can be good if it gives the player a few key choices. It's like saying that Deus Ex: Human Revolutions was significantly improved because, oh shit, you got to press buttons at the end. I mean I still can't read the chart here either so maybe I'm missing something but just because did something at point A and it bit me in the ass at point B, while can certainly be effective, just doesn't seem to have the narrative to back it up. I still feel like I'm watching a bad 80s movie, I mean the hudson death scene alone with "MENDEEZZZZZZZZZZZ" was fucking horrible.

Mass "all your decisions mean shit, pick a colour" effect

While we're on the subject, it fucked the ending up hardcore but at least it had the narrative and interesting characters to back it up, just saying.

The series for some time (after the first BLOPS, I think) has had bots for multiplayer, something that a lot of games dont, and they are very nice to play with, not on the level of an actual human but still competent enough to keep someone that doesnt play online entertained.

Advanced Warfare actually had some unique elements to multiplayer borrowed from Unreal like dodges and double jumps, when was the last time that was in a multiplayer FPS?

Oh I don't know, TF2? One of the most popular multiplayer FPS in the last decade? The problem with the above two statements is that this isn't anything... new, not even really innovative. It's 'new' to the brown/grey degenerate first person shooter wasteland, sure, but 'gaming at large'? Not in the slightest.

So yeah, you are still misinformed, and the fact that you didnt played any of these games but instead watched "quite a bit" doesnt help your case at all.

The argument could be made that I can more effectively judge a narrative because I'm disconnected from it and not caught up in the "turn off your brain and focus on shooting" aspect.

Edit: I fucked up the quoting, again.