CODBLOPS 2 Has Horses & Robots & Everything

By Alec Meer on May 2nd, 2012 at 1:08 am.

It’s 1:06 AM in the UK. Why in the sacred name of Galvatron aren’t I in bed yet? Why am I posting the trailer for Black Ops 2 instead? These and more secrets will be revealed in Call of Meer’s Bedtime: Groggy Morning 2 tomorrow. In the meantime, just watch the damn trailer, which has all manner of future death-machines and a level of outright absurdity that even my great cynicism didn’t predict, and let me go brush my teeth. YES AMERICANS, BRITISH PEOPLE DO TAKE CARE OF THEIR TEETH, ACTUALLY.

NOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSE.

It’s actually gone sci-fi, then. Or openly gone sci-fi, at least. Robotic ATVs and everything. Hmm. That almost makes me interested. Almost. If it embraces its silliness at least a little. And presuming it doesn’t simply involve watching an NPC pilot the big stommpy robots before I just get dumped on foot into another favela full of pop-up men.

Also, I bet that horse is cybernetic. Stands to reason, see.

__________________

« | »

, , .

168 Comments »

  1. Zaboomafoozarg says:

    YES AMERICANS, BRITISH PEOPLE DO TAKE CARE OF THEIR TEETH, ACTUALLY.

    i call shens and demand a pic for proof

  2. Bradeh says:

    It has everything except my money. So there’s that.

  3. Gunrun says:

    I quite like the BF2142esque tech shown in the trailer, looks interesting. On the other hand its just another Call of Duty game so the only places we’ll see this stuff is in a 5 hour long campaign and as killstreaks in the multiplayer which will probably remain pretty much identical to the last 4 games.

    • Keymonk says:

      That sums up fairly well how I feel. I keep telling people I’m not interested in generic contemporary shooters… and then they make a sci-fi one. I should be happy, but it’s CoD and the gameplay isn’t particularly… interesting, I guess.

  4. cqdemal says:

    This is one of the very few trailers in recent times that elicited no reaction whatsoever from me.

    Well, aside from “Is that the old engine again?” that is.

    • rapier17 says:

      Do you know chap I felt exactly the same way about it.

    • noclip says:

      Why spend time and effort improving tech when they make $10 billion every year pumping out the same thing over and over?

      • ZIGS says:

        It’s actually a bit disturbing that the engine may still have bits of id Tech 3 in it

        • tehspartan029 says:

          You do realize that the Source engine was built on id tech 1 right?

          • Williz says:

            That’s Gold Source. Not new Source.

          • Mo says:

            Source is based off GoldSrc, so yeah, there are still bits of Quake1 in Half Life 2. :)

            It’s not that crazy when you *really* think about it. 3D engine tech hasn’t evolved that much since Quake 1, especially for first person shooters. Things get prettier (higher fidelity assets, shaders, multiple texture maps, lighting, etc), but the underlying technology (static BSP maps) is still the same.

            The only game to really push the boundaries on 3D engine tech is RAGE (with it’s virtualised texture memory a.k.a. MegaTexture technology), but the jury’s out on whether it was worth it.

          • Williz says:

            I wouldn’t say RAGE really pushed it as the textures are a bit crap on PC. Enemy Territory Quake Wars for when it was released I would say pushed it but there’s not really been much more dev on the whole megatextures thing.

          • Mo says:

            From a tech perspective, it is pushing the boundaries (i.e.: doing something innovative). The tech is solid, the problem is that the assets end up being *massive* … Carmack said that the source textures take up 1 terrabyte, so in order to ship them on discs/download a lot of them had to be heavily downsampled. If number of disc/download size wasn’t an issue, Rage would actually be able to stream 1TB of textures to your videocard in a performant manner!

          • Baboonanza says:

            Not likely, there are plenty of other bottlenecks in the disc to screen process that would prevent 1 Tb of textures being usable.

            They could have done much better than they did of course.

        • PoulWrist says:

          I tried out MW3 in that first F2P weekend, since we were hosting a LAN that weekend, and the movement was decidedly Quake 3…

    • f1x says:

      They have improved the engine a bit actually, MW3 has slightly better litghtning and more detailed models

      but its definitely feeling old, those low-res textures…
      thing is I wouldn’t care much about the engine if they actually improved everything else

  5. Zaboomafoozarg says:

    LOL, horses? Activision please.

    • SteveHolt_MP says:

      The thing that makes me saddest is that Treyarch have the opportunity to tell an engaging story about the collapse of modern technological society, and humanity’s resilience in overcoming oppression, culminating in a Aqaba-style battle with the resistance charging their former creations heroically.

      But yeah, it’ll probably be on rails and last about 30 seconds.

    • Bhazor says:

      Now if that was Ponies.

    • Gap Gen says:

      If only you could whisper to the horses. Now that’d be something.

    • Trent Hawkins says:

      Donald : I’m putting in a chase sequence. So the killer flees on horseback with the girl, the cop’s after them on a motorcycle and it’s like a battle between motors and horses, like technology vs. horse.
      Charlie : And they’re still all one person, right?

    • Smion says:

      I bet a tenner that the bad guys are able to hack all the good guys’ tech because in the future everything will have W-Lan but no anti-spam software for all those e-mails about free abonements of Jane’s Defense Weekly.

      If not that then “E EM PEE”!

  6. westyfield says:

    Balls, it actually looks like it could be fun. Like a mixture of GRAW and 2142, with stompy missile dogs.

    Though not fun enough for me to shell out the £45 or whatever the hell they’re charging for CoD games these days.

    • Gonefornow says:

      CoD will jump the shark AGAIN (feel free to decide when this happened before and for how many times)
      in 2025 and finally die off.

      In 2050 there will be a sale for all the Cods for a tenner.

      Then I will buy them (and this obv.).

    • Navagon says:

      But it won’t play like GRAW. It will play like 4 hours of having doors opened for you.

  7. Durkonkell says:

    the sacred name of Galvatron

    I have a Mr. Horace on the telephone. He says he wants a word with you – something about breaching your multiple deity clause?

  8. Blaaaaaaag says:

    Here’s my highly original criticism: Still just looks like a bunch of pretty set pieces. Can you even steer that horse, or is that a rail-shooter section? Bet they won’t let ya pilot any of that fancy tech, either…

    • maninahat says:

      Which leads me to ask: what is wrong with being led through pretty set pieces? If they’re done well, they can be great and memorable.

      We all know how COD games work by know, so its hard for me to keep getting bothered by their shtick. Its sort of like getting upset over Jeremy Clarkson, saying something offensive – it’s not a surprise any more, what were we expecting?

      • Blaaaaaaag says:

        Any game where I feel like I’m walking the exact same steps as everyone else who plays it will quickly lose my interest. I’m not expecting this cod to suddenly catch my interest any more than any previous cod has (which is not at all), but it’d be a nice surprise if one finally did.

    • Edlennion says:

      I don’t know about you, but when I watched that trailer, “pretty” was very far from my mind.

      To me it looks like a bunch of ugly set-pieces

  9. Secundus says:

    DOES EVERY FUCKING GAME IN THE FUTURE HAVE TO RIP OFF DXHR AESTHETICALLY NOW

  10. Shantara says:

    Is it just me or does it look really bad?

  11. piratmonkey says:

    The campaign looks completely silly. The horse bit was totally Cowboys vs Aliens (or what it just me?).
    Multiplayer/Co-op should still be fantastic however.

    • Eukatheude says:

      If COD was all cowboys vs. aliens i’d have bought every single annual reiteration.

      By the way, is that guy Makarov (despite being dead)? And why did no one else point out the wobbly music? Maybe it was too obvious they would use it?

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      “still” is a funny word.

    • Firkragg says:

      On a more technical note, special forces receive extensive training, but seriously, horse riding? I hardly know which way to sit if you plonk me down on a horse and this guy is going full sprint on a horse in the middle of battle.

      • Jimbo says:

        Horses are a decent way to get around in Afghanistan apparently. Presumably the part in the trailer is from the Soviet war in Afghanistan, but US special forces also used horses to get around in 2001 when they were riding around with the Northern Alliance airstriking the shit out of everything before the invasion proper.

        There’s a book about it called ‘Horse Soldiers’ by Doug Stanton. It’s ok.

  12. ResonanceCascade says:

    I’d love to be a fly on the wall for one of these brilliant design meetings. “YOU KNOW WHAT WE HAVEN’T DONE YET? HORSEBACK ROBOT FIGHTS!”

  13. sinister agent says:

    Genuine question: Does anyone actually know someone who talks like that in real life? Outside a laryngitis ward, anyway. It sounds very uncomfortable.

    Looks quite shooty and explodey. I wonder what perspective it’ll be from.

    • Secundus says:

      the guy who voiceacted ben in full throttle (rest in peace) and the guy who did all those IN A WORLD WHERE trailers (also rest in peace)

  14. jthmmdom says:

    I would actually like to play this game since I enjoyed blops.

    It is a blockbuster game aimed at making an over the top experience. To criticize it for being so is equivalent to complaining about how Fifa is a sports game. I am not refuting that it may or may not be bad but that criticizing a game for its genre seems to be silly.

    I am interested in this game.

    • Brun says:

      It is a blockbuster game aimed at making an over the top experience.

      We have too many of these already.

      Plus I’d hardly call what Call of Duty creates an “experience.” That implies some sort of meaningful interaction from the player.

      • Lamb Chop says:

        Hey, if you said, “Want to ride a rollercoaster through the land of EXPLOSIONS?!!?!” I’d probably be the first to sign up. Just don’t tell me I’m playing a game, or I might get some unfair expectations.

      • bigdeadbug says:

        Ziing!

        Although it is kind of true. To criticise a COD game for being like every other recent COD game is kinda pointless at this point. Then again I suppose they could at least try and improve on it (beyond adding a section of horses vs robots).

        Oh well here’s hoping that there might be more to it this time around.

    • Bhazor says:

      But… they’re shit.

      Even taken for what they are. They’re shit.

      If they’re action movies then they’re action movies with incomprehensible stories, unlikable characters, dull action sequences, crap special effects and awful pacing. Thats not even going into the fact that they often attempt to handle serious subject matter with embarrising results.

      As a game you can add amazingly restrictive, rehashed, made with out dated tech, severely limited in ambition and with a crappy spawn camp happy completely unbalanced multiplayer mode.

    • piratmonkey says:

      Same.

  15. Walsh says:

    I wonder if I get to follow AI characters in game. I’m tired of shooters forcing me to go it alone.

  16. Daniel Klein says:

    I kinda do like actually. This is where they needed to go. Obviously they’ve had a fascination with technology for a while, but trying to stay plausible (which they have, a liiiiiiiiittle bit) kind of hampered them.

    Also, that question, what happens when someone steals the key? Preeeeetty sure we thought of that. It’d be the first question I’d ask. They could have at least read one recently written near-future sci-fi novel and gone the “omg the enemy has quantum computers and state of the art public key cryptography is trivially easy to break”. Then they could show quantum computers! Which are blue, and emit steam, obv.

  17. Godwhacker says:

    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD JUST STOP WITH THE DUBSTEP

  18. codename_bloodfist says:

    Horses vs. High-Tech Robots? I can’t see how anything can’t possibly go wrong. Granted, the Polish cavalry vs. APCs didn’t really work out all that well in Krojanty, but it’s okay cause we have Americans in charge now. Thank you, American, THANK YOU! *1tear*

    • Grape Flavor says:

      Actually the whole cavalry-charging-tanks image was conjured up by Nazi propagandists to paint the Poles as being of subhuman intelligence.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#Misconceptions

      Interesting how 67 years after the utter destruction of Hitler’s regime, people are still disseminating his lies in casual conversation.

      • Sirbolt says:

        He wasn’t disseminating anything but the truth. The battle at Krojanty happened and a third of the cavalry were mowed down by APC’s after successfully dispersing the infantry unit they were charging. There’s a reason modern armies don’t use cavalry and horsemen VS 20mm KwK is not a pretty sight. Cavalry VS advanced futuristic technology is equally ridiculous.

        • Grape Flavor says:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_at_Krojanty

          Nothing in this article even remotely suggests Polish units ever were in the habit of charging armored German units with cavalry. They were attacked by APCs emerging from the road after a successful attack on an infantry unit. The unit was equipped with appropriate anti-tank weapons, but you could certainly argue the Poles had made a tactical blunder with that charge that exposed them to the APC attack. I’m not disputing that.

          However the original post was similar-sounding enough to the Nazi propaganda trope of “stupid polacks charging tanks with lances” that I felt it deserved comment. I’m not saying it was intentional by any means but it was similar enough to the Nazi trope that I thought it merited clarification.

          I’m not trying to pretend Poland won the war, or exactly matched the German forces in terms of technology, because they didn’t. But I do think it’s important to push back against statements that may even inadvertently reinforce modern-day belief in false Nazi racial propaganda.

          I may have misinterpreted and overreacted to the original post and I apologize for that.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Equally warm, fleshy people don’t stand up too well to APCs in exposed terrain. And yet we still send meat-based humanoids into battle rather than relying on our synthetic superiors to cleanse the planet of all hostile biological agents.

  19. bear912 says:

    I… well… um… that… could be interesting…?

    As a side note, I’ve got to say, the color grading or gamma correction or something in every recent Call of Duty trailer really turns me off. It makes the gameplay footage in trailers look far, far worse than the game does in person. Not sure why…

  20. El_Emmental says:

    PONIES :D

    I no longer feel any emotion upon watching these trailers, all I see is the same “experience” one would get by going to see a movie with tons of guns and explosions and no other meaning, this is like “You want some bang-bang boom-boom ? Buy our product !”.

    Seriously, it feels like a cheap (in terms of personal value) consumable, like a soda can, a burger in a fast-food, a microwave-heated pizza.

    If someone is enjoying it, I think “why not ? sure, if they do that too much, they’ll die sooner – but if they’re happy doing it, it’s their choice”. If there’s nothing else to consume (like when you’re stuck at someone else place), you’ll take a bite or two to not starve, but you won’t really enjoy it.

    It’s the same here with Call of Duty, it’s a fast-food gaming experience.

    You’re not consuming it for the delicate and subtle taste, to experience something new, you’re not taking any risk, it’s just fat and sugar triggering some dopamine release in your brain and that’s it.

    ps: is it mean to call people playing only the latest Call of Duty until the next sequel is released “people with a gaming disorder” ? this is tempting :]

    ps 2: Peggle is like candies, peanuts or potato chips : we’re all guilty of it.

    ps 3: oh my drm, I’ve got a pavlov reflex just by thinking of roasted pistachio nuts. Same when I think about the Frontline Force mod.

    • Brun says:

      is it mean to call people playing only the latest Call of Duty until the next sequel is released “people with a gaming disorder” ?

      I don’t think it would be accurate – it implies that those people are, in fact, gamers. Which is untrue.

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      Even my COD diehard friends are groaning about how terrible this looks. There’s fast food, and then there’s fucking Arby’s, and this has definitely reached that level of unpalatability.

      • Optimaximal says:

        Are these the same ‘diehards’ who only play CoD games by Infinity Ward because INFINITY WARD!

        ???

        • ResonanceCascade says:

          …no. Believe it or not, these are intelligent, well adjusted people who just happen to really like COD games (except this one). One is a long-time teacher with multiple degrees and accolades.

          I know it’s hard to believe that someone who plays *gasp* Call of Duty might actually have a real opinion on something that isn’t made up by a marketing team, but I guess that’s just something the internet is going to have to live with.

    • The Random One says:

      Seriously though, someone who plays any game to ‘tide you over’ until the next release definitively has a ‘gaming desorder’. If there are no games of the genre you like replay an old game or buy an old game for three bucks or just go outside and read a freakin’ book (you can also read a book indoors, or go outside and not read a book).

  21. Bhazor says:

    0:33 in the trailer.

    That has to be one of the shittest explosion I’ve ever seen in trailer. I mean wow,

  22. Lamb Chop says:

    Hello, teens. Look at your keyboard, now back to the screen, now back to the keyboard, now back to the screen. Sadly, you’re not in the future. But if you stopped using old fashioned war simulators, and switch to CoDBLOPS you could act like it’s the future. Look down, back up. Where are you? You’re on a road with the helicopter your men exploded. What’s in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It’s a 3D map of that city you love. Look again. The city is now ruins. Anything is possible when your war simulator is set in the future. I’m on a horse.

  23. The Random One says:

    Hey, this Metal Gear Solid/Red Dead Redemption crossover is looking pretty great.

  24. Skabooga says:

    I’m guessing the surprise twist is that your enemies didn’t really steal the keys to your robots, but that the robots gained sentience and rebelled. Well, that’s how I would write it.

    • Brun says:

      Nah, the surprise twist will be that nobody stole the keys and that it’s all a government conspiracy to crush the poor or some equally socialist nonsense.

      • Bhazor says:

        The twist is that there aren’t any robots and its all just a computer simulation

        Basically this

      • YourMessageHere says:

        I’ll put money on the twist being that there is no twist, it really is some leet afghan haxor who has stolen the US Army’s unconvincing robotic toys, because terrorism. There may even be some red herrings along the way, but since they will be foreshadowed by some act of overt heroism on the part of the false antagonist nobody will be remotely convinced, and will play through expecting a twist right up to the credits.

        Then they’ll release twist DLC – who was behind the leet afghan haxor?

  25. dethtoll says:

    God dammit. They had something interesting with the 60s thing in the original Black Ops; now they have to go all futuristic? Fuck me raw.

  26. somini says:

    Nice Total Recall reference at 40s. OH GOD WHY AM I WATCHING BLOPS2 at 3 in the morning?

  27. TODD says:

    aerial vehicle design? check
    box guards? check
    music? check
    timeline? 2025 instead of 2027
    yellow filter? check
    grizzly voiced narrator? check

    I know there’s a logical fallacy for what I’m doing right now, and there was a lot about the trailer that wasn’t a ripoff of Human Revolution. I’m just tetchy about COD taking so much of one of my favorite games of all time and bastardizing it.

  28. kud13 says:

    I must say, the lack of wub-wub is pretty dissapointing. They clearly wanted to play it, but held back for some reason.

  29. bongosabbath says:

    You got my MGS4 in my CODBLOPS2!

  30. defunkt says:

    How is it that being a laughing stock doesn’t appear to adversely affect their sales?

  31. Walter Heisenberg says:

    Man Shooter……Man Shooter never changes

  32. domizindahawze says:

    Terminator meets Rambo meets Empire strikes back, anyone?

  33. tlarn says:

    I can’t help but feel the developers are using a very loose interpretation of “black operation” with this game.

  34. noom says:

    “These things they built to keep us safe…”

    “These things they built to steal resources, ‘accidently’ kill innocent people, and keep the developing world under our control so we can maximise profit”

    There you go COD trailer, fixed it for you.

  35. Screamer says:

    Soooo….. same engine means same awful sound effects. Couldn’t play MW3 after BF3…… felt like I was shooting with pop guns and throwing melons at the enemy after the awesomeness that is BF3′s BOOOOOM RATATATATATATATATATA BOOOOOOOOM!!! XD

  36. DarthBenedict says:

    I liked the bit where the robots and the cowboys were chasing an explosion through the desert.

  37. PearlChoco says:

    So this year they kept the engine from the previous game?

  38. Coccyx says:

    They missed a brilliant opportunity to call this ‘black to the future’.

  39. PoulWrist says:

    An enjoyable premise for a game. Wonder if it delivers.

  40. mr.ioes says:

    Channel CALLOFDUTY has 571.793 subscribers. The Video before this one was posted 2 weeks ago and has close to 2.000 views.

    Nice sub fake?

  41. RedViv says:

    So it’s 80s AND a future with land-walking legged tanks? Count me in. Keep it silly, I know you do better when you do so, Treyarch.

    Also heard about it having choices. Intrigued.

  42. oWn4g3 says:

    The protagonist is having such a nice hairstyle that he completely rejectes to wear a helmet. But maybe they will have bulletproof hairspray by 2025.

  43. DumbCreature says:

    i am interested can you install grenade launcher on this flying droid?

  44. Sinnorfin says:

    This reminded of the old Duke Nukem Forever trailer….Graphically…
    Seriously some stragegy games look better while zoomed in close.

  45. Obc says:

    is that Dickie Bennet at 1:11 ?

  46. Dyst says:

    Treyarch did interesting things with the Call of Duty format in Black Ops, at least narratively speaking, and it totally paid off. Black Ops was easily the best campaign in Call of Duty since MW1. This has given me some amount of faith that this will be good enough to warrant playing.

    Also, the fact that they are using horses is kind of great.

    Edit: Also, maybe read this http://www.giantbomb.com/news/lets-talk-about-the-future-of-call-of-duty/4120/ It seems like they are trying to take it in a slightly new direction, at least?

    • maninahat says:

      What gets me is that people tend to say that all COD games are identical: look, the format is the same – shooting pop outs whilst being guided from one set piece to another – but the actual story missions are pretty diverse in tone, setting and content. Sometimes you’re sniping a Ruskie supervillain, or skidooing through tundra, or guiding missiles from a huge war-plane, and in this one, you’re riding on a god damn horse. We’ve gone from the 60s all the way through to the future, all around the world and back, visiting every developing country and a few fancy ones too.

      Saying “they’re all the same” just comes across as ignorant, and I get the impression it is the chief criticism made by people who don’t even play those games.

      • Optimaximal says:

        I’ll bet money a number of the complaints come from multiplayer gamers who then proceed to buy the next game anyway.

        I’ve own pretty much every COD game – yes, they’re meat headed and fairly pants from a progressive point of view, but I enjoy the stories in a guilty pleasure kind of way, even though it means putting up with some terrible whack-a-mole gameplay at times.

      • Nethlem says:

        “Saying “they’re all the same” just comes across as ignorant, and I get the impression it is the chief criticism made by people who don’t even play those games.”

        Tbh as a gamer it sounds more ignorant to say that it’s not the same just because they switched location, changed the setting and add bigger setpieces.

        Gameplay wise CoD products are stale like a piece of old bread, they never add anything new or
        meaningfull to the actual gameplay. It mostly boils down to a guided tour of shooting galeries.
        The player is not controlling the game but the game is shoving the player into predistned paths to “show him” cool stuff he didn’t even trigger or start.

        The only thing changing are the locations, types of enemies and to a small degree the weapons used. But they never introduce new meaningfull mechanics that apply to the whole game and stay consitent.

        It’s like the “scripted reality TV” of gaming, it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do but nobody cares because it’s “entertaining” and you can turn off your brain while consuming it. Just run along for the ride and enjoy the “spectacle”.

        If i want that, i can simply go watch an action blockbuster movie, they are similar flat in terms of content, story, character depth and overall progression. But watching a movie is cheaper and less stressfull in overall, with a movie i can’t complain about a lazy developer who put script triggers in stupid places because he didn’t predict players having a free will and not just following arrows. With a movie i at least know that i’m not the main protagonist and i don’t get any false illusions up. In CoD you constantly get told how important YOU are and how YOU have to do this and that, but in the end all of YOUR actions boil down to following choices that developers predefined for you.

        Don’t get me wrong, i’m not “hating” here i’m just trying to point out that “games” like CoD maybe need their own niche now. Let’s call them “interactive experiences” or something else stupid fancy sounding.

        But CoD titles have moved away so far from the original concept of “games” (as in simulation of systems that players can interact with to get different outcomes) that they should be called what they are: Movies that give you buttonpress prompts from time to time.

        Heck if they would sell the singleplayer parts of the CoD games for 20€ without all the MP thrown in i would be all over CoD. The SP campaigns are an spectacle after all but they don’t deliver a lot of depth or replayability so they should be priced accordingly, instead of depending on a broken Multiplayer mode to get any replayability out of the game.

        • YourMessageHere says:

          “The player is not controlling the game but the game is shoving the player into predistned paths to “show him” cool stuff he didn’t even trigger or start.

          The only thing changing are the locations, types of enemies and to a small degree the weapons used. But they never introduce new meaningfull mechanics that apply to the whole game and stay consitent.”

          1. This is true of most games, to be honest. That is, after all, how level design works. Even GTA leads you through any given mission.

          2. Those games that do introduce new things over time, like levelling to unlock a new ability, often earn my scorn for arbitrarily holding back mechanics. it’s usually both damaging to the narrative and entirely immersion-breaking: now I can assign myself the ability to e.g. jump higher or have more health because I killed X no. of enemies? How does that make sense? At least here, there’s less overt gamification of something that’s aiming for immersion.

          3. What can you add to a military-styled FPS that constitutes “a new meaningful mechanic”? A horse? Gun-drone quadcopters? I suspect any answer to this question might instantly be dismissed as a gimmick, if not by you then by the internet at large.

    • konrad_ha says:

      I love it how they talk about all kinds of exciting stuff and then release a trailer of a totally different game. That’s PR for you.

  47. Nemon says:

    By Azura that voice over guy is horrible. Over the top keeeewl and I’m just waiting for a south parky voice to say “starring Raaaab Scneeeider, pee gee derpteeeen”. Gah.

  48. Palindrome says:

    For a AAA title it looks surprisingly crude.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>