TechSpot: Call of Duty Black Ops II Benchmarked

For Call of Duty fans, developer Treyarch just delivered an early Christmas present when they released Black Ops II this week. As the ninth game in the Call of Duty franchise and the sequel to the 2010 game Black Ops, we are hoping to see something meaningfully new from Black Ops II. We say this because last year's release (Modern Warfare 3) was somewhat lackluster on the PC, and also because the competing franchise Medal of Honor: Warfighter has received mixed, if not poor reviews overall.

But we could be in luck as Black Ops II is the first game in the Call of Duty franchise to feature future warfare technology and the first to present branching storylines driven by player choice. But as usual, our main concern from a performance article perspective has to do with the game engine which has been slow to evolve over the years. The key changes to the game engine include a new technology called "reveal mapping" which improves texture blending by comparing tones between two textures before blending them together.

Lighting has also been improved and now includes HDR lighting, bounce lighting, self-shadowing, intersecting shadows, and various other improvements. On paper the upgrade also calls for the move to the DirectX 11 API for the PC version of the game. This means PC gamers should enjoy better visuals when compared to those using console versions.

Read: Call of Duty Black Ops II Benchmarked

These articles are brought to you in partnership with TechSpot.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Review: Windows Phone 8

Next Story

Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2013 evaluation available

7 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

MW 1 was boring and all the reviews i read afterwards made me skip all versions of COD.
By the picture it looks like some more of that futuristic war fps crap.
The franchise is lacking and they need to listen to feedback.

Ugh...I hate this franchise now.
Loved it soo damn much up until modern warfare 2, best one was the first modern warfare, but then it all just went downhill.

Honestly, I can't believe how popular it still is.

Wow, the graphics don't even look that good, especially considering the last time the CoD series graphics' were even updated. And, look at the frame rates they're getting. I get better on BF3/Crysis 2 with similar settings (MSAA 4x, high/very high, etc...), both games which look a heck of a lot more realistic/complex than the screenshots I've seen so far.

Then again, you can't compare what's become a modern arcade game to a 64-player battlefield, nor can you compare it to a work of graphical technical genius. Which is exactly why I will, again, be skipping this game.

Breakthrough said,
Wow, the graphics don't even look that good, especially considering the last time the CoD series graphics' were even updated. And, look at the frame rates they're getting. I get better on BF3/Crysis 2 with similar settings (MSAA 4x, high/very high, etc...), both games which look a heck of a lot more realistic/complex than the screenshots I've seen so far.

Then again, you can't compare what's become a modern arcade game to a 64-player battlefield, nor can you compare it to a work of graphical technical genius. Which is exactly why I will, again, be skipping this game.


You're right. The actual real gameplay and graphics appears cartoonish to me.

AWilliams87 said,
Game is overrated.

I stopped at MW2 and went to BFBC2... Afterwards on BF3, but at least CoDs receive actual support and bug fixes. EA DICE after the first patch, hasn't fix any serious glitch. Only balance adjustments which require no real work, but they do make the patch notes lists seem long. All devs moved onto BF4 and fast-made DLCs.

What I'm trying to say, CoD's way is now how these games will be moving forward, but if EA DICE is not willing to provide support ( many paid over 100$ ), the only option is to go back to CoD series. Also, don't expect vast improvements on BF4 either -like CoD.