[PS3/360] Call of Duty: Black Ops Review

[AgtFox]

Call of Duty: Black Ops Review

Title: Call of Duty: Black Ops
Platform: 360/PS3/PC (also available on Wii)
Developer: Treyarch
Publisher: Activision Blizzard
ESRB: M
MSRP: $59.99 (360/PS3/PC), $79.99 (360 Hardened/PS3 Hardened), $149.99 (360 Prestige/PS3 Prestige), $49.99 (Wii)
Editor: Loren 'AgtFox' Halek

What's Hot: Single player campaign is longer; story is better and more cohesive; story covers over two decades and three major battles (World War II, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam War); graphics are still phenomenal; exceptional set pieces; more cinematic events that you have control over versus just watching; Easter eggs galore including the original Zork and an above view Smash TV-like minigame involving zombies; multiplayer depending on how you feel about it

What's Not: Feeling of being a one man army is back; friendly AI does not help you; the major twist in the game can be seen from halfway across the world (or maybe it’s just me); Zombie multiplayer is too by the book when compared to Treyarch’s last game in the series; mission setups feel a bit like Assassin’s Creed with almost as many conspiracy theories floated

A year after Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 the leaders of Infinity Ward were ejected and Treyarch is left with bringing out its every other year iteration with Call of Duty: Black Ops, a game that uses the general engine, but seems to stake its own claim to possibly being the best game in the series yet…at least on the single-player side. Treyarch finally moves out of World War II and moves into the Cold War era. There is one mission that flashes back to post-World War II 1945 and a main character’s experience, but most of the game is set in the 1960s both during the Bay of Pigs operation and later on in the Vietnam War.

You play mostly in the role of Special Forces operative Alex Mason, voiced by Sam Worthington of Avatar fame. Early on, even before I knew he was the main character’s voice, I swore I was hearing a British accent even though the character was decidedly American. As the story went on though there wasn’t as much of Worthington’s accent that I detected. I’d say you play as Mason for roughly 80% of the game. Most of the other 20% is taken up by controlling CIA Agent James Hudson, voiced by actor Ed Harris. Both of the two characters are part of the Studies and Observations Group, or SOG, a group tasked with handling classified missions apart from the regular military outfit and therefore explains the Black Ops subtitle.

Along with those two you will also play the part of Victor Reznov, a character from Treyarch’s last game, Call of Duty: World at War. This makes a natural connection between this game and that game, but there is also a mission where you take control of Reznov after the end of World War II in 1945. Reznov is also very important to the overall story since Mason is caught by Castro during the Bay of Pigs operation and dumped into the same concentration camp that Reznov is at in Russia. The two form a friendship and plan out an escape. At the end Mason jumps onto a train while Reznov is left behind and Mason believes he is dead, but later we find that not to be true.

Along with this between and even in the 15 missions presented here are scenes showing Mason bound in a chair that sends an electrical charge through him. There is an interrogator or two asking him questions about what he remembers and especially about the numbers Mason keeps on hearing in his head. Mason doesn’t know the answers early on, but as the interrogator moves him from place to place in his long and recent past things start to become a little bit clearer. If you have a good ear you can hear who the interrogator is even with the voice suppressor that makes them sound like they smoke a ton of cigarettes a day. In some ways these sections remind me of Assassin’s Creed and how it hands its story. Every mission happened sometime in the past and are all related to figuring out what the numbers are and where they’re broadcast from.

The story presented in Black Ops is actually good and tightly constructed. Sure, it moves into fringe conspiracy theory with things related to World War II, the Bay of Pigs and the overall Cold War through the Vietnam War fight. Everything ties together and it is quite interesting how they tie in World War II era people and items that are still very valid into the late 1960s. The graphics are obviously phenomenal, although some of the close quarter action you control and cutscenes you don’t control can get quite hectic, but the framerate stays consistent. Along with this both the musical score and the licensed tracks (like Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son” and the Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil” along with others) combined with the voiceovers are simply top notch. That shouldn’t surprise you though given how much was put to the development of this game and the fact that it sold over $360 million in one day.

Is this game better than Infinity Ward’s offering last year? I’d say yes and no. As I was playing through the missions I really felt I was back into the “army of one” type of setup. There were times where I had a friendly team around me, but they’d allow enemies to run right by them (and the enemy didn’t shoot them either) and I’d have to take them out. The friendly AI is really stupid in this game, although there were many times they did what I needed them to. Things are still very much scripted in this game and there are points where there is unlimited spawn of enemies until you get to a certain spot. The nice thing is that ammo and weapons are plentiful, so running out of either shouldn’t be a problem. One of the coolest additions on this front to the game is the crossbow and exploding arrow crossbow, but I only used them a few times.

This game is obviously longer than Modern Warfare 2, but I question whether that longevity I had was related more to me dying a lot or the actual game was longer. I’d say the story was more in-depth and no mission was really one I blew through in under 10 minutes like I have in previous Call of Duty games. It certainly keeps your interest unless you’ve totally written off the series. There are a lot of pulse pounding moments throughout the whole game. A cool addition to each mission is that it shows you information about the mission to open it, who is the main character and where they are. The information then blacks out with only who you play as, where you are and the date of the mission highlighted in red lettering.

The one thing I will criticize is that maybe the script was written with the lowest common denominator in mind. The reason I say this is because the twist of the story (every Call of Duty seems to have a twist at some point) can be seen from half the world away. I already had the twist figured out early on in the game and was actually disappointed when I found out my hypothesis was true. Also other ideas I had turned out to be true come the closing movie.

One other thing I didn’t realize until after I had completed the storyline is that there are intelligence items hidden throughout the missions that then allow you to see all the stuff blacked out in documents through the intel screen. I’m certainly interested in going back through the game to find those as I find this era of history to be utterly fascinating revolving around President Kennedy and all the turmoil during his presidency and after his death.

Along with this Treyarch has brought back the Zombie multiplayer game. In one option you’ll take the role of some notable historic people as you take out the zombies attacking the Pentagon. I didn’t spend much time with this and didn’t find many people playing it online to play with on the PS3. Also multiplayer is back, this time with 14 maps available. Much like the last game, you have to gain experience points to level up and unlock new things such as gameplay types. I don’t play much in multiplayer, I leave it to our readers who have a better sense of whether it is better this year than last or not.

Finally Treyarch has put some Easter eggs in this game. The first one is that you can play the original Zork by freeing yourself from the chair and finding the PC in the torture room where you can run the game and play it. There is also a top-down perspective Zombie game that plays a lot like Smash TV or Zombie Armageddon from last year. The latter is also available as a gameplay type in the Zombies section of play.

I know a lot of you out there are against anything with Call of Duty in its name or the fact this is developed by Treyarch off the engine Infinity Ward built. The fact is that these games have high production values and are well worth it from at least the multiplayer side with the experience situation if you’re into that. With Black Ops I would also argue that the single-player campaign, the reason I pick these games up, is rather lengthy when compared to others in the series. I know a lot of people don’t like the perceived short campaign, but this one just seemed longer. One thing I can say about the campaign is that there is no mission that you’ll be done with in minutes, so that’s a change of pace. Bottom line is that Call of Duty: Black Ops has options for everyone and I highly recommend it if you haven’t picked it up already.

Score: 4.5 out of 5 CoGs


Loren says, “Call of Duty: Black Ops is simply a top-notch and fantastic game whether you’re looking for a long campaign in relation to other games in the series or new maps and the chance to build your experience up in the multiplayer section. You can hate all you want, the fact is that these games are still high quality and will still sell a ton of copies.”

*Note - Review based upon the PS3 version of game

[scythe]

I also thought the twist was pretty obvious and I literally lol'd when I found out what the numbers meant. So, I didn't think it was the strongest story, but it was still a good bit of fun. I'm still partial to the MW series.

[crazyD]

Man, how can you do a review of a CoD game and barely gloss over the multiplayer? I'd say that's the main draw of the game for most people. Title should be updated to "Call of Duty: Black Ops Single Player Review".

[AgtFox]

Originally Posted by crazyD

Man, how can you do a review of a CoD game and barely gloss over the multiplayer? I'd say that's the main draw of the game for most people. Title should be updated to "Call of Duty: Black Ops Single Player Review".

Generally my reviews cover single-player for the most part because that is honestly how I mostly play. I did play a lot of multiplayer here, but I didn't see much different from MW2 to this game mostly because the last time I played MW2 was probably way earlier this year.

The draw for me in CoD is the single-player section no matter how short it is. Frankly, games like this and the Halos (and others of their ilk) tire after a while for me in multiplayer if I don't have friends readily available to play with. Add into this I had the PS3 version of Black Ops and I had less friends to choose from since I can only guess most people pick this up on the 360 around here generally. So, for the hours of multiplayer I played I was put in with random people that loved using the f-bomb every other word.

I am no expert on CoD multiplayer, so I leave it up to others who can more clearly see the differences between this and MW2. It's not as if I constantly play CoD or Halo for months after their releases, I'm onto other games to review by then.

I clearly state that multiplayer is a huge draw for most people, so I'm not sure where I'm selling it short. Most people do pick it up for multiplayer, I'm just not one of those people.

[crazyD]

Yeah, you state that it's a big draw, but you don't go into any detail on it at all. I get that it's not your thing, but you are effectively only reviewing half of the game. I'd say this review is on the level of a review of a single player game where the reviewer gave up halfway through playing. Sure, that may be the way he normally plays games, but it doesn't cover the whole experience.

[burger]

Originally Posted by scythe

I also thought the twist was pretty obvious and I literally lol'd when I found out what the numbers meant. So, I didn't think it was the strongest story, but it was still a good bit of fun. I'm still partial to the MW series.

I think he meant relative to other CoD games...it's not like the WWII based ones had any semblance of a plot. I would agree with him that compared to MW and MW2 this was heavily plot driven and the cut scenes had more weight and dialog than previous CoD titles.

I didn't think the twist was THAT obvious...it wasn't as meaningful as "I am your father" but it wasn't all that obvious either.

[AgtFox]

Originally Posted by crazyD

Yeah, you state that it's a big draw, but you don't go into any detail on it at all. I get that it's not your thing, but you are effectively only reviewing half of the game. I'd say this review is on the level of a review of a single player game where the reviewer gave up halfway through playing. Sure, that may be the way he normally plays games, but it doesn't cover the whole experience.

What kind of detail are you looking for in the multiplayer section? It is generally set up the same as MW2 was with you gaining experience points that unlocks more gameplay types, character types, weapons, etc. I also note the 14 maps available from the start. I'm not sure what else I can bring to the table on it because I won't perceive the possible deep changes like someone that lives and breathes CoD multiplayer will, so I'm not even going to attempt to do that.

You also have to understand that by this point almost everyone who was interested in CoD from a multiplayer (and possibly single-player) perspective has already picked the game up. I chose to hone more in on the single-player campaign because many people complain about the shortness of most CoD games and I wanted to tell them why I'd recommend it from that perspective in that I felt this one was longer. I don't have a length I played because I was starting and stopping a lot throughout the weekend and for some reason they don't have a notification of time played like MW2 had (and maybe the 360 version does have this, I don't know) that I could count on for length.

Anyway, that's how things are. I can understand your criticism, but maybe you'd like to touch on multiplayer and how much/little it has changed since MW2 because you've obviously put more time (and maybe more recently than myself) towards CoD multiplayer than I have.

[AgtFox]

Originally Posted by burger

I think he meant relative to other CoD games...it's not like the WWII based ones had any semblance of a plot. I would agree with him that compared to MW and MW2 this was heavily plot driven and the cut scenes had more weight and dialog than previous CoD titles.

I didn't think the twist was THAT obvious...it wasn't as meaningful as "I am your father" but it wasn't all that obvious either.

Yes, I was meaning twists in comparison to the recent MW games.

Maybe I'm just a bit too perceptive with the twist. I can't tell you when I knew, but it was probably around a third into the game. It also went down exactly how I had envisioned it would. Not sure if I can chalk that up to bad writing or just that I was very perceptive to the twist.

[ThievesAmongUs]

Aha ! I knew it was Sam Worthington as Mason.

[AgtFox]

Originally Posted by ThievesAmongUs

Aha ! I knew it was Sam Worthington as Mason.

Yep, he should have said "Pandora" or "Na'vi" and then you would have known for sure. Seriously though, am I just hallucinating or did his British accent come out early in the game? I was seriously confused until the cutscenes made it perfectly clear Mason was American.

[burger]

Originally Posted by AgtFox

Yep, he should have said "Pandora" or "Na'vi" and then you would have known for sure. Seriously though, am I just hallucinating or did his British accent come out early in the game? I was seriously confused until the cutscenes made it perfectly clear Mason was American.

He's Australian

He only lived in the UK for 2 months...his accent is distinctly Australian

[Karak]

Originally Posted by AgtFox

Yep, he should have said "Pandora" or "Na'vi" and then you would have known for sure. Seriously though, am I just hallucinating or did his British accent come out early in the game? I was seriously confused until the cutscenes made it perfectly clear Mason was American.

Isn't he from Australia
EDIT: Burger beat me.(that sounds...disturbing)

Hmm as for the story. Well I asked the 3 friends who have beat it(I have not) if the twist, which I do not know. Is very easy to guess.
1 said yes the other 2 gave a "hmmmm" look. Like. They didn't think so and said it. The one who knew right away basically said there is 1 particular clue given once, early and if you miss it you wait longer before you realize it via other smaller clues.

The 1 who guessed it right away told the other 2 the clue that they missed. Once he said it they sat there and nodded like a bunch of birds for awhile. So it must be something of an ahh haaa moment.
I covered my ears.
So I am not sure.
I must have missed it. But that makes sense. People are talking, locations visited cutscenes done at a pretty big pace. It would be easy to be talking, taking a piss, fighting for your life whenever the subtle but easier to identify clue is let out. Versus the many smaller ones.

[AgtFox]

My bad, I'm not up on my Sam Worthington trivia. I knew he was born in England and deduced from there he was British. Thanks for the catch.

[Wilkz07]

had fun with some of the story levels. The blackbird segement was one of my favourites. Not sure i can finish the single player before the game goes back to bbv. i'll have to rent it again sometime.

saw the tv spot they are pitching with the 'everybody is a fighter' - think that's kobe in one segement. the game has the M and says rated M for mature at the start... why does it then show a couple of kids with guns (the fat girl with glasses)? Activision saying that sure its M rated but parents can buy it for their kids?

[scythe]

Originally Posted by AgtFox

Yes, I was meaning twists in comparison to the recent MW games.

Maybe I'm just a bit too perceptive with the twist. I can't tell you when I knew, but it was probably around a third into the game. It also went down exactly how I had envisioned it would. Not sure if I can chalk that up to bad writing or just that I was very perceptive to the twist.

There was something early on that either referenced or reminded me of...

Fight Club

Can't remember exactly what it was, but after that I was pretty sure what was going on.

[jpc_theoneandonly]

Well AgtFox, there are many differences between this multiplayer and the multiplayer of MW2. Most noteably, the currency system. As you level up you unlock the ability to purchase weapons, attachments, camo, etc. You could use only one weapon through your entire multiplayer experience. Granted, you will not gain the XP you could through completing weapon specific challenges and will take much longer to level up.

I feel that the multiplayer is better balanced. There is no "better weapon" save one. The AK74U. Beast of a SMG. I can almost guarantee it will be nerfed in an upcoming patch. Put rapid fire and a grip on it and go to town. There are less glitches though I do know of a few. Treyarch put invisible walls up everywhere. I know because one of the first things I do before diving right in is go into a private match and check out all of the maps. I search for exploits so I will not be suprised by a phantom bullet coming from outside of the map. Good luck.

The worst part of multiplayer is the spawning. Treyarch never seems to get it right. I don't know how many headquarters matches I have played and the teams consistently spawn within and behind each other no matter who holds what portion of the map. It is ridiculous. Hit detection is also an issue. I suggest unlocking hardened pro as soon as possible. Extra bullet damage and when shot you do not bounce and fire off target. Definitely a plus.

Other than a one overpowered SMG, care package glitches, shitty spawn rotations and poor hit detection, I find the multiplayer in black ops to be a much more satisfying experience than MW2.

One last note, stay away from Hardcore. It has went to shit since CoD 4.

[Lance Uppercut]

Originally Posted by jpc_theoneandonly

Well AgtFox, there are many differences between this multiplayer and the multiplayer of MW2. Most noteably, the currency system. As you level up you unlock the ability to purchase weapons, attachments, camo, etc. You could use only one weapon through your entire multiplayer experience. Granted, you will not gain the XP you could through completing weapon specific challenges and will take much longer to level up.

I feel that the multiplayer is better balanced. There is no "better weapon" save one. The AK74U. Beast of a SMG. I can almost guarantee it will be nerfed in an upcoming patch. Put rapid fire and a grip on it and go to town. There are less glitches though I do know of a few. Treyarch put invisible walls up everywhere. I know because one of the first things I do before diving right in is go into a private match and check out all of the maps. I search for exploits so I will not be suprised by a phantom bullet coming from outside of the map. Good luck.

The worst part of multiplayer is the spawning. Treyarch never seems to get it right. I don't know how many headquarters matches I have played and the teams consistently spawn within and behind each other no matter who holds what portion of the map. It is ridiculous. Hit detection is also an issue. I suggest unlocking hardened pro as soon as possible. Extra bullet damage and when shot you do not bounce and fire off target. Definitely a plus.

Other than a one overpowered SMG, care package glitches, shitty spawn rotations and poor hit detection, I find the multiplayer in black ops to be a much more satisfying experience than MW2.

One last note, stay away from Hardcore. It has went to shit since CoD 4.

This sums up my multiplayer experience on the PC. This game is very well balanced for the most part, more so than MW2 (or even MW1) was. In addition, there are tons of dedicated servers for the PC so you'll always find a game to play. However, the player cap is stuck at 18 for ranked servers (24 for unranked), which is fine since the maps are too small for anything more. No issues with hit detection here, though, but the spawning is definitely a problem.

Another thing that bears mentioning for the PC version: there's a significant problem going on with lag and stuttering issues. A patch was released, and for the most part it seems to be fixed (though from the sound of things on the interwebs, if you have anything less than a quad core processor, your mileage may vary). I bought and started playing the game post-patch, and I've had little problems with it so far.

[jpc_theoneandonly]

Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut

This sums up my multiplayer experience on the PC. This game is very well balanced for the most part, more so than MW2 (or even MW1) was. In addition, there are tons of dedicated servers for the PC so you'll always find a game to play. However, the player cap is stuck at 18 for ranked servers (24 for unranked), which is fine since the maps are too small for anything more. No issues with hit detection here, though, but the spawning is definitely a problem.

Another thing that bears mentioning for the PC version: there's a significant problem going on with lag and stuttering issues. A patch was released, and for the most part it seems to be fixed (though from the sound of things on the interwebs, if you have anything less than a quad core processor, your mileage may vary). I bought and started playing the game post-patch, and I've had little problems with it so far.

Oh, you reminded me of one major set back to the console version (xbox 360 for me) of Black OPs. The servers are horrible. Constant party drops. I have waited nearly 20 minutes only to be put into a dead lobby. The team has to back out and then try again which usually takes atleast another 5 minutes or so. Not only is it hard to find a match, but I have experienced entire parties falling apart in seconds. The host begins to search for a game, the countdown begins then all of the sudden poof... party disappears.

I do know that for the xbox 360 the servers are peer to peer and not dedicated servers. Why Treyarch would do such a thing is beyond my comprehension. I think they could learn a valuable lesson from Valve. As much money that they put into the game, they could have spared a bit for the servers.

[AgtFox]

Not sure this is still true, but it used to be unless you were EA Microsoft ran all the servers for a game that runs on Xbox Live.

I had a lot of disconnections and empty lobbies on the PS3 though, so that may no longer be true because I think Sony's stance is that the companies run the servers.

[jpc_theoneandonly]

Originally Posted by AgtFox

Not sure this is still true, but it used to be unless you were EA Microsoft ran all the servers for a game that runs on Xbox Live.

I had a lot of disconnections and empty lobbies on the PS3 though, so that may no longer be true because I think Sony's stance is that the companies run the servers.

Hmm... I am not too sure. I do know that Left 4 Dead has dedicated servers. Why microsoft would provide dedicated servers for one game, which of course are much better than peer to peer, and not for another is just stupid. In fact, any multiplayer game such as CoD, Left 4 Dead, Gears of War, etc. should be provided dedicated servers no matter who is running them.