Another year, another Call of Duty. With the crazy money Activision makes from each one, and more they'll make from the next, it's not surprising that this is a possible endeavor. Every year, Call of Duty and Activision always comes under scrutiny and every year they pass with flying colors. Will they ever release a shitty game?
Whatever it is, I've had a go with Black Ops so read on for my final verdict on this year's cash cow.
---
Like it or not, Call of Duty is never going to stoop as low as making their games ultra-realistic, feature sensitive and true-to-life portrayals of the US military or other nations for that matter. This is the shit Hollywood wanks off too; explosions every other second, larger than life macho men that never shed tears, preferring jumping into hails of bullets instead of run in the opposite direction. Bad guys usually have a Russian or Middle Eastern accent, and are bald with finger-twirling mustaches. And the sheer amount of weaponry on offer continually grows, an orgasmic adventure for gun enthusiasts. But even a long-time FPS player such as myself stares in bewilderment at some of the strange attachments - an AK-47 with flamethrower?!? WTF!?! Is that even possible?
Doesn't really matter with a Call of Duty game. What it boils down to is killing a lot of people.
So this time, you're killing people in the Cold War because clearly, Treyarch didn't want to tread the tiresome turf of World War 2 nor encroach on now-defunct Infinity Ward's modern warfare space lest they get their ass handed to them by overt-fanatics.
Cold War's good though cause it's hardly been done, and if you know your history, you'll know that it's a war that's mostly a verbal sling match between superpowers US and Soviet Union. Whether or not there really was a shooty war going on in secret is up for contention, and conveniently Treyarch just has to call it deniable ops for it to suddenly become possible for their game. The Vietnam War part is real though, and features just as heavily. Treyarch's done jungle warfare before with World at War so they aren't really getting out of their comfort zone.
The major problem I faced with the single-player is that I never felt fully engaged. I was just going through the motions, cutting down wave after wave of faceless bad guys. Pacing is an issue; the entire game was on hyper-speed, a rollercoaster that never had any down-time. An orgasmic climax that never stopped climaxing. It was bang, bang, bang through gauntlets of different environments right from the start. It got rather tiresome. The sneak-em bits didn't feel sneaky enough either; there was nothing that came close to the tension of the sniper bits in MW1/2. This could be my fatigue towards yet another Call of Duty game, or Infinity War just understood pacing and tension a lot better.
I'm also annoyed at those scripted moments when your character is thrown about in a helicopter crash or explosion. I don't ever want to see another in-game cutscene of me picking myself up off the ground, or your superhero friends saving your ass. It's an overused mechanic in shooter games a lot these days. It certainly feels like the devs have a fetish for throwing players unexpectedly off their feet. I mean, why can't I be the one rescuing my downed teammates? I'd like to be appreciated for saving a life rather than being the damsel in distress all the time.
Shooting is fine; I won't dwell too long on it because heck, by now Call of Duty, Treyarch and Activision has refined this to a T. I just wished that the actual combat was more tense which happens not by throwing wave after wave of baddies at me, but by making each pocket of combat more pronounced, more tactical. Medal of Honor touched on this momentarily but the best example of this is Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway.
Team AI was horrific to the point that it ruined the immersion of the game. Sometimes, your superhero teammates would run right past the enemy because he was scripted to do so, magically dodging all the bullets fired at them. Bullet-sponge teammates was a big issue in previous CoD titles but why has no one worked on making this less apparent now? I half suspect all the enemies purposely picked on me only too.
The game doesn't feel dynamic at all, you're pretty much on-rails the entire time, surviving in a battle of attrition level after level. The worst example of this was an early Vietnam level where you're fighting Vietcong in trenches; it's frustrating that no matter how many you kill, you can't move on if you haven't completed the actual objective.
Thankfully though, at long last, vehicular combat has been improved in Black Ops. The tank bits were standard fare, just shoot at everything that moves but the helicopter flying bit was surprisingly enjoyable. There was an illusion of complete control as you moved the entire machine whilst firing intense weaponry at everything on the ground. Technically you can't crash the helicopter, leaving you to focus on the firing but it was at least less on-rails then Medal of Honor's helicopter bit, so Treyarch has to be commended for that.
As for the story, it definitely is a different take on warfare than what has come before. It's all Tom Clancy-esque top secret bullshit and there's a dash of horrific torture/brainwash story thrown in which makes the main protagonist you play a lot more relatable. And they even gave him a stronger and prominent voice throughout, so you don't feel like a silent gimp to everyone else. I may be wrong but the main guy sounds Australian not American? Anyway I liked that.
But the story was pretty much a flashback of the main guy's action-man life up till the final events which is pretty epic as a level. The return of Gary Oldman as Reznov was the stellar highlight for me - I liked what they did with Reznov's character, having him return from World at War and play a very important role in this story. Definitely fleshed him out and made him more godlike through empathy than Captain Price who was just an overtly pompous caricature of how Infinity Ward liked their macho men.
Activision has one of the best graphics engine in the business. Black Ops is positively dripping with visual immersion. The jungles, snow-peaked mountains all look shiny, but the water is especially shimmery that I just wanted to crouch down and drink it up. The character models are lifelike and cool too but why do all Call of Duty bad guys have to be bald, ugly and mustached?
Sound is fine; the fine that permeates from extensive research the dev team is expected to have done to get the gun sounds right, along with the appropriate over-the-top techno or orchestral music to go with the bombastic action. The voice-acting stands out, as mentioned before, Gary Oldman being the shit, but also whoever played the Australian main protagonist.
And finally, the all important multiplayer. Is this the ground-shaking epic game-changer that is to overtake Infinity Ward's prior masterpiece? Black Ops does a lot of good things; all the camping, all the crazy unfair perk cheats, and killstreak stacking has disappeared. Even the maps are better balanced, organically built so it doesn't feel like you can predict where enemies will come out from, relying more heavily on the skill of gunplay and reflexes to watch your back at all times. In this sense, Treyarch's shooter is less arcadey than Infinity Ward's and some people will prefer that. I've been used to MW2 for the longest time so making the transition to the new game's rhythm is still a challenge for me.
They've also retooled the experience and rewards system. Whereas in MW2 you unlocked weapons, perks, killstreaks, items the higher levels you climbed, with Black Ops, there's all that but you still have to purchase them with earned credits before you can use any. It's a cumbersome and unnecessary addition; probably Treyarch's attempt to differentiate themselves from MW2, but in doing so, makes it that little bit harder and more annoying for us to attain our rewards.
The multiplayer would've beaten MW2's flat out based on the well-thought out tweaks Treyarch has implemented, building on top of MW2's already robust system. But I cannot recommend it just yet as poor internet connectivity makes me want to tear my hair out. Treyarch stuck to their dedicated server guns for the PC version which is odd considering the console version implemented matchmaking (pioneered with MW2). I personally prefer the latter because connecting is a cinch, there's little lag or stuttering once you're in. With Black Ops dedicated servers, there is lag, connection drop-outs, long waits before you find a decent game and even then, you're angry because your hits are not registering fast enough due to lag.
In conclusion, Treyarch has come into their own with Black Ops. They've proven they can make a slick game and step out of the shadow that is Infinity Ward. There was enough good things with the single-player to compel me to continue, although it will never match the tight, solid affair that was Modern Warfare and its sequel. This game was rather schizophrenic in its ambition and scope, but I applaud it for trying. There's no doubt that for the price you're paying, you are getting a great entertainment package. Don't expect the most convenient of experiences just yet jumping into multiplayer though. I'm hoping Treyarch fixes it up, otherwise there's always MW2 to fall back on.
No comments:
Post a Comment