Call of Duty: Black Ops III Will Boast Four Player Campaign Co-op, Zombies, and More

Good old Treyarch. The way the coop was implemented in World at War, with the competitive scoring mode, was one of the best coop modes available in the series. Hopefully Treyarch return to it

Oh snap, I am now interested

Treyarch always makes the best Call of Duty games.

Ugh..... I was going to skip COD this year.... Now I'll have to buy it. This sounds too awesome to pass up on! I'll skip Infinity Ward's COD, promise!

Sorry guys I aint buying this crap, its just going to be the same as the last games. Bring back waw and bops1 gameplay so much better. ( in my personal oppinion)

bugger wasnt going to get this now looks like i am

Treyarch never let us down do they

They always throw words like "ambitious" and "immersive" around, year on year, yet the game is ultimately EXACTLY the same.
Though they do seem to have figured out that balance is more important than those ridiculous killstreaks.
BUT, I enjoyed the MP in Black Ops 2, it had some really well thought out kit, amd the maps in Ghosts were a lot better than most, due to the size being much bigger.
Thats my opinion though, I know Ghosts was apparantly crap, even though everyone bought it…

Lets be honest CoD games have been delivering the 3 games in 1 now for many years. Zombies (co-op) started in [email protected] and IW gave us Survival and Extinction modes as well as the usual campaign and MP.
As a result of this, everyone expects CoD to have these 3 elements. Treyarch can't let one aspect drop - especially not now with an extra year to develop too. I know some people only play 1 or maybe 2 parts but I generally play all 3. As a result, these games usually offer a lot of value to me.

It's funny; Infinity Ward was always considered the 'A' team, whilst Treyarch was the 'B' team - though these days, it seems to be the opposite. The Black Ops games are very solid, and I'm quite looking forward to this one.

@Kage_88 Infinity Ward were the 'A' team. Treyarch were bought in to help give Infinity Ward more time to finish CoD4: Modern Warfare but before that Infinity Ward were the only ones making CoD. Even with [email protected] - a good game but sandwiched between the 2 Modern Warfare games, it really seemed a step backwards. Things changed though after MW2 with the battle between most of IW and Activision. Treyarch also gave up making other games to focus solely on CoD. The infinity Ward that was, has all but gone now and because of the mess they were in,MW3 needed multiple development teams to finish it in time - Sledgehammer, Raven, Beachhead, Neversoft and even Treyarch helped by doing the Wii version.
Treyarch though remain pretty stable enabling them to not only catch-up but surpass a stumbling and chaotic IW who lost the majority of its creative force behind the CoD franchise. I know Ghosts has its critics but feels more complete and more consistent than MW3 - better hit detection, less lag etc so there is hope that they can get back to the force they once were.
A brief history lesson in CoD but it also shows that not ALL CoD's are equal and 'the same game reskinned' as often gets levelled at them. I know there are similarities but most (if not all) FPS games have certain things in common too. Lets be honest how much has Battlefield changed over the years? A new engine here and there may have improved the look but underneath each is very very similar. EA tried a yearly release with Battlefield (Dice) one year and Medal of Honour (Danger Close) the next which was there attempt at the Treyarch/IW situation - only they had 2 different names to use where Activision just put them under the same CoD Umbrella.

Everything sounds good but the biggest take away for me is 4-player campaign co-op. That bumps it up into "must-buy" territory, so long as nothing horrible is shown between now and release.

@BAMozzy Good post! I woul never buy another COD game simply because of what Activision did to Zampella and crew...they(activision) essentially stole their baby and sent them packing through subterfuge. Anyone who has never heard the full story of what happened should do some research, as it is unbelievable the way it all went down.

As for Medal of Honor however, it was not at all the same as what Activision/Treyarch were doing. Medal of Honor was it's own thing long before COD, and it was simply an attempt at a revival. They just happened to use the frostbite engine, as it was the best engine for wht they were trying to achieve with the game. Unfortunately the CoD duche bags and the CoD-loving media helped to insure that a MoH revival would never be allowed.

The original crew of Infinity Ward were part of 2015 and worked on Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. The way EA wanted to run their FPS franchises was a similar model to CoD with Battlefield alternating with Medal of Honour. They resurrected Medal of Honour because of the criticism that games like CoD were getting for being 'yearly' titles so hoped that the different names would make it seem like they were not doing the same thing but in essence they were. Battlefield was to be in competition with IW's CoD and Medal of Honour with Treyarchs. It was also to give each franchise a 2 year development cycle.

What happened between Activision and the original Infinity Ward may never be fully known but they sacked West and Zampella due to breaches of contract and subordination. To me it sounds that they got to big for their boots because of the success of the CoD franchise and contracts are contracts. I bet when West and Zampella signed a contract to make games at Activision they also signed away the name Call of Duty - similar to how a lot of developers don't own the games they are famous for - look at Bungie and the Halo series for example. There are a lot of creative people that don't get the 'credit' they deserve as they are under contract to a company. A lot of company's inventions are not owned by the inventor who created and developed them.

I am sure Activision are not 'innocent' either but either way I certainly don't let the politics dictate which games I will play. If I did I would never play Activision or EA games but they are just publishers and have some great developers though. Just because of what happened at Infinity Ward you then lose out on some of the best CoD's since like the Black Ops series.

Because Medal of Honor: Warfighter was a 'flop' EA has had to rethink and has withdrawn the Medal of Honor games from development indefinitely. They have subsequently tried to bring Visceral into the Battlefield franchise. Hardline was originally planned for October (a year after BF4) but due to a lot of negativity during the Beta, they pushed this back.

For me Black Ops 3 is a definite purchase. Zombies alone would be enough but the addition of MP and a Campaign makes this a great package. I loved BO1 and 2 so see no reason why 3 (with its extra year of development) won't be anything other than great.

@BAMozzy Great post, and I very much agree. I've always thought CoD got way too much hate in some circles - when in fact every game has bought with it new features to help keep it fresh, and the core gameplay has always been solid.

@iDangerMouse_
Yeah I heard at first it was going to be waw2 and I was excited and secretly hoping it would feel the same as it did before but when it was officially announced it was going to be bops3 I was pritty gutted lol owell looks like i will have to wait and hope.

snooze

I am happier that they are not going back to World at War or that era. First off I find it difficult to play games that are based in reality and designed to be 'fun' as CoD are when it was such a brutal conflict. My grandfather fought and survived WW2 but the emotional scars he carried stayed with him forever and I can't play these games without being reminded of him and thinking what he went through.
Secondly I feel that if CoD were to go back to that era, the game pay would also revert back. Not only that they would lose a certain amount of creativity and innovation with trying to keep a sense of reality and historical accuracy but would also lose the freedom to try something new and different within things like movement, weaponry, perks etc. I also do not enjoy the weaponry of that era either.
I don't enjoy AW's MP though with the Exo-movement as that has totally ruined the flow so I understand why people may want to return to an older style game.
As much as I enjoyed games like CoD4, MW2, BO, even [email protected]'s MP at the time, I cannot go back and play them now with the same sense of enjoyment I had then. The things I hated about the series (quick/no scoping, explosives/noob tubes, death streaks etc) have all been addressed to a degree. Whilst I know things like Quick scoping are still possible (as they are in any FPS games with Snipers) its more difficult to pull off consistently. Lets not forget that those early games all had more unbalanced weaponry as well. The whole create a class system feels dated in those games. Not being able to be as flexible as today's system feels quite restrictive. Lag and hit detection have been significantly improved too. Whilst most of these could be addressed in a new version, I still don't think they should make an Arcade shooter in this era - personally I think the Battlefield series would be better suited to doing a WW2 era game.
The one thing from the [email protected] game I hope that does make it into BO3 is the level of 'gore'.
I have no fears over Zombies as Treyarch has consistently delivered here. I know some of BO2's were a little bit too much, I still thoroughly enjoyed them and looking forward to seeing where they take it next. Its by far the best co-op experience in a CoD game!