Call of Duty: Black Ops

 From now on, Call of Duty is now a multiplayer only shooter franchise, where the single player is tacked on just for the hell of it. At least that's the way it seems with "Call of Duty: Black Ops", which has a very addicting competitive multiplayer, a fun, but nothing special cooperative multiplayer, and a rather poorly executed single player. Simply put; the campaign in this game doesn't need to exist, however promising it is.

You play as Alex Mason, who starts out being interrogated by a disembodied voice that is so comically deepened, that it reminds me of the voice of a witness testimony on a court reality show. In fact, all of the voice acting is pretty much terrible. It all makes the game feel really corny, especially Sam Worthington who plays Alex Mason. Sure, having Ice Cube in the voice cast is pretty cool, but does he really turn in a good performance?

The corny voice acting fits right alongside the corny story. The people interrogating Mason are asking him about certain missions in his career as a CIA operative. These missions are presented as flashbacks, and that's where your gaming skills are needed, because you are the one playing through these missions. Since you are in the CIA, the game has you involved in several conspiracies from world history, starting off with the assassination of Castro in Cuba. Yes, the assassination of Castro in Cuba. If you don't get why this is a weird thing, you probably won't have a problem with the story of Black Ops.

Now, I can deal with a bad story in games, but I can't deal with mediocre design. Everything from the A.I., to the actual levels, to the enemy placements, all feels poorly designed. Your allies act the same as they always have in COD, but your enemies act so unrealistically, that it pretty much kills the game. I can recall one instance where I was in a room that led to a hallway with a bunch of guys in it. I had three allies with me in that room shooting through the doorway. Then, one enemy came through the door, ran to the corner where I was, and killed me, while my allies were shooting at him. Once again, if you don't understand why this is a problem, you will probably have fun with the campaign.

Also, shooting guys isn't satisfying... at all. Black Ops has a slight bullet delay between when the bullet hits a guy, and when the damage of the bullet becomes apparent. So, I always felt like I was shooting thin air, and this is what ultimately killed the campaign for me. Oh yeah, there's no cooperative campaign either.

I can go on and on about what I dislike about the campaign, but suffice it to say that it's not worth your time. Luckily though, you're not missing out on too much content. The campaign is only about 5-6 hours long, so don't feel like its wasted disc space.

Since the campaign was so disappointing, the multiplayer needed to be DAMN good for me to recommend this game. Luckily, it is. This is the best competitive multiplayer I've seen from the COD series, which means that it's outstanding. If you've played the multiplayer from any of the past three Call of Duty games (Modern Warfare, World at War, or Modern Warfare 2) then you know the basics of what to expect, however there are a few twists here to make the experience feel somewhat new.

The core action is still the same as Modern Warfare 2, so you'll be playing one of many game types, leveling up a persistent character class(s), and, of course, aiming down the sights shooting guys with the pleasant sound that happens when you hit someone. As such, a lot of you may write the multiplayer off as being "more of the same". I feel sort of on the fence about that subject, but the little changes here are enough to not instigate total déjà vu.

First off, the game has been rebalanced all across the board. So say goodbye to quick scoping, noob tubing, Michael Myers, and drop shotting. I won't go into how these issues have been fixed, but they have been. The ways that weapons and perks are allocated in the class creation screen have been changed as well. Shotguns are primary weapons again, riot shields are gone, death streaks are gone, and the "Pro Version" of perks are now more difficult to unlock. These probably sound like bad things, but they make the game feel far more balanced and fun.

Despite all of this, easily the biggest change to the multiplayer this year is the addition of a currency system. You still have to level up in order to unlock items, but once you do unlock them, you have to purchase them using "cod points". Once you buy a weapon, you then proceed to buy the attachments, the camo, and anything else that has to do with your weapon. The "cod points" are also spent on buying perks, "Pro Versions" of perks, kill streak bonuses, etc. This system is pretty cool, although, it made the excitement of leveling up not as high as previous COD games. Still, the currency system is actually a rather nice addition.

Also, I would have liked to have seen new modes from the multiplayer. All of the multiplayer modes were from Modern Warfare 2. No original modes. Sure the wager matches are neat diversions, but they aren't as fun as the main game. You can discover what wager matches are yourself.

Overall, this is the best multiplayer the series has ever seen.

For cooperative play, Nazi Zombie mode is back from World at War. If you don't know what Nazi Zombie mode is, you are lost and hopeless. It's about as fun as the Zombie mode from World at War, so you should know what you are getting into, except for the new maps. There are two zombie maps total in the game, making the mode feel fun, but nothing special. Personally, I preferred last year's Spec Ops mode.

So, the single player sucks, the multiplayer is amazing, and the co-op is fun, but nothing special. So, in the end, the multiplayer makes the game worth getting, it's that good. However, I feel like this is the last game in the series that can use the formula established by COD 4 that I will be able to recommend.