In Soviet Russia, game play you. ...No, really, in this case it totally does.
Cons: Preposterous story • Chaotic pacing • Completely linear progression constantly demands relinquishing controls • Ho-hum voice-overs • Zero single-player replay value • Campaign clocks in at five hours.
Call of Duty: Black Ops begins with your protagonist strapped into a chair, immobilized, and prepped for torture. While this opening is certainly consistent with the "dark and edgy" ad campaign that preceded the game's launch, I'm not actually sure that the developers of this game were aware of the sharp irony concealed behind the opening sequence of this title. The fact is, this scene is representative of pretty much everything you will have to suffer through in the next five hours that you will have to part with for the sake of completing this tedious spin-off's single-player mode.
But let's rewind, lest I am accused of being unfair. Call of Duty: Black Ops, or CODBO henceforth, is not a true heir to the canon Call of Duty franchise, but rather a continuation of the storyline of Call of Duty: World at War (if what World at War had for a single player mode could be referred to as "a story.") You play Alex Mason, a recently compromised Special Operations Group operative, returned to farm, and being debriefed in the most unsettling ways by some shadowy figures behind three feet of bullet-proof glass. The events from this point on exist in a kind of narrative ether, conveyed through a series of vaguely connected flashbacks, though, strangely, not all of them Mason's. The story deals with some kind of end-of-the-world doomsday device, a cryptic series of numbers meant to brainwash compromised operatives, and a deadly collusion of ex-Soviet and Nazi power-players in an attempt to take over the world (of course!)
The story sounds interesting as an outline, but its actual implementation lacks any kind of cohesion or, indeed, coherence whatsoever. The whole process seems like a collage hastily slapped together out of Chuck Norris action movie clichés: there's the Snow Level, the Vietnam Level, the Submarine Base level, the Prison Break level, the Vehicle Level, and the Trippy Drug Trip Level (actually, by far the best of the bunch, if only because of its clever presentation so reminiscent of Remedy's Max Payne.) In fact, the only conspicuously absent level is the Sniper Level, but given the chaotic and often downright poor pacing of the action, that is perhaps for the better. While the missions attempt to tell the story in a fashion reminiscent of the narrative techniques pioneered by Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan, they fail because the characters meant to hold them together are weak, undeveloped, and ultimately serve no purpose besides picking off the enemies you failed to kill. They might have just as well had been replaced by a pack of weaponized EOD robots for all the personality they are afforded. At no point do we see any actual camaraderie being built up between Mason and any of his comrades in arms; the notion that they are friends is cynically foisted upon the player by the game designers, who convey this idea in a series of voice-overs which play over rapidly flashing images of Soviet propaganda, maps, and quasi-CIA tech-lingo meant to replace the tedium of the loading screens.
A special note must be made about the voice-work in CODBO, as it is surprisingly, shockingly terrible. For all the pomp and circumstance that accompanied the signing of such greats as Gary Oldman and Ed Harris to the voice-over cast of the game, it is amazing how thoroughly shallow and uninspired their delivery of the lines they are given can be. It's almost as though they collected their pay and checked out prior to the commencement of actual development. Indeed, as these are the only things bringing otherwise lifeless marionettes to life on the screen, it's shocking and embarrassing how poorly the voice-overs reflect the tension and urgency of the situations our protagonists find themselves in. Never mind the fact that, at no point in the game, did the audio director say: "Cut! Can we please, please, with a cherry on top, standardize the pronunciation of the names 'Dragovitch' and 'Kravchenko'?"
So, the technical side of the development process is really where the game shines, though that is a small consolation. Ultimately, a game of CODBO's pedigree should not get bonus points for having clean controls, crisp visuals, and quality sound effects. In fact, that should be the expected baseline for COD games at this juncture. To praise the game for having tight controls and outstanding visuals is a little like praising a person for having two arms and two legs: it's not an excess of expectations, it is the norm.
The problem is that neither the controls nor the visuals matter much once the gameplay comes into focus. My first play-through of the game, replete with magnificent explosions and set-pieces, was, I will admit, somewhat astounding - if only because I realized how technically competent the game engine's developers must have been to be able to accommodate so much stuff on the screen at the same time. Upon my second play-through, a shocking realization set in: CODBO is entirely, completely linear in its progression, and the game seldom even attempts to mask this fact. In fact, it frequently reminds you that you are but an observer by actively wrestling control away from you during certain sequences, and forcing you down linear pathways and corridors during the most tense of the firefights.
Let's think back to the year 1998, when Half-Life came out. Among the multitude of memorable sequences that populated that game's world one stands out for me: the train ride to Black Mesa, and the prelude to the horror that is about to be unleashed by a simple miscalculation. You could explore the world you were given, look at things, play with the items around you, talk to your fellow scientists - in short, become immersed in the game world, because gosh darn it, you were going to be living in it for the next ten or so hours!
In a complete about-face, CODBO does the exact opposite of what Half-Life accomplished; the sequence introducing Alex Mason and his modus operandi is not only completely scripted, it's also not even player-controlled. And I'm not talking about the kind of on-rails progression, where the players are still allowed to look - no, no, that would be far too generous! Instead, even the camera's point of view is hijacked by the game so that the game developers make absolutely certain that the smoke blown in your face by the woman at the Pentagon does not go unnoticed. This kind of blatant, unapologetic linearity is quite literally everywhere in CODBO, essentially removing any element of connection between the player and the game. By the final mission, it wasn't so much difficult as it was impossible for me to care about what was happening, because I no longer had any real stake in what was happening on my screen. I made none of this happen, I had zero contribution to the way the plot played out, and my investment in the way the events ultimately played out was nil.
Having spoken about the shortcomings of the game's single player campaign, I have to admit at this point that one cannot get through this review without discussing the multiplayer. And the multiplayer is, indeed, a fine affair: it is a robust suite boasting rich customization options, a leveling progression, and a complete line-up of multiplayer modes ranging from the standard (Team Deathmatch, Free-for-All, Capture the Flag) to the bizarre (One in the Chamber, Gun Game). The addition of COD points and wager matches further increases the depth of the multiplayer suite and provides an almost endless array of load-outs and kits for your avatar.
The problem with multiplayer matches, however, is two-fold. The first of these problems is a carry-over from virtually every game that supports public match-making servers: whether you win or lose is largely dependent on luck of the draw, because few individuals out there actively play this game with teamwork in mind. The experience point system that the CODBO multiplayer suite is constructed on encourages lone-wolf tactics rather than actual, real-world squad-based configurations, where each individual plays a single specific role. The matches thus devolve into wild goose chases around maps, and beginner players are likely to die so many times in their early careers as to become completely disenchanted with the game (I know I have.) The second problem, of course, is that the extent of the game's multiplayer depth makes one exceedingly bitter about the lack of content within the single-player campaign. The linearity becomes all the more apparent, and, as Benjamin "Yahtzee" Croshaw frequently states, every game should be able to stand on the merits of its single player without falling back on the multiplayer modes as the primary offering. The excellence with which the multiplayer is delivered only offsets the disappointing lack of cohesion and spark of the single-player campaign, essentially relegating it to the status of a five-hour long tutorial.
Ultimately, though I am bound to catch a ton of flack for saying this, I have the sneaking suspicion that the primary reason reviewers are giving CODBO such glowing marks is pure inertia. We have all been wowed by the classic Call of Duty back in 2003, but that was nearly a decade ago. Since then, the developers have stubbornly refused altering the formula to such an extent that the reintroduction of the series into a modern setting with Call of Duty 4 was hailed as the second coming of Game-Jesus. Given the amazing steps and gambles some games have taken in the past, it's shocking to me that CODBO prefers linearity masked with sound and fury to the ultimately more rewarding openness of Far Cry 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and Crysis. While I understand that the emphasis of CODBO is slightly different, it never hurts to pay close attention to how well the competition is faring and, dollar-for-dollar, the developers that try new things deserve my money far more than Activision and Treyarch.