With a title as large and socially obtrusive as the latest iteration of Call Of Duty, it places the humble bloggers amongst us in an awkward position. Finding something relevant to say in the cluster-fuck of Black Ops related banter is an unpleasant task that must nevertheless be undertaken. Because, whether you like it or not, Black Ops is relevant.  
 
 
 FUCK. 
 
 

So. Black Ops, huh?

 That happened. 

And it shows.

Right.

I completely disagree with your view on the single player campaign. The multiplayer maps do seem very lackluster, though.

" ...it places the humble bloggers amongst us in an awkward position.... "

" @Sweep said:

" ...it places the humble bloggers amongst us in an awkward position.... "

It does? I'm certainly not in an awkward position. "

I'm pretty sure there's only one World War II mission in the game, and its purpose is to show you why Reznov wants Dragovich and Steiner dead.

" I'm pretty sure there's only one World War II mission in the game, and its purpose is to show you why Reznov wants Dragovich and Steiner dead. "

 "  There are chunks (whole chunks!) of Black Ops which seem to be rehashed battles from the second world conflict, a theatre in which Treyarch seems to perform much more comfortably."

Great blog as always, Sweep :D. 

 

Hmmm...interesting read but gonna have to disagree. I think this is the best single player campaign of the series to be honest. There was only the one WW2 level and like nate said it serves a narrative purpose. I didn't really feel like they were treading old ground at all, i mean the pacific theater from WaW and Nam have some similar looking environments but for me anyway that's as far as the similarities went. I thought it stood out from a narrative purpose and did a great job explaining why different characters ended up in different locations, much better then MW2 did.
As for the MP i'm liking the maps so far. There seemed to be a bit more variety in the initial MW2 maps but i really like FIring Range, Array and Nuke Town. Hanoi and Havana are also both great maps. The guns also feel a little more varied then they did in MW2.
My only complaint I have would be, at times the spawns are godawful. I had one situation where an opposing player and myself killed each other then somehow spawned right near each other.
What?

 Oh and also I'm curious as to why you referenced CoD 3 as opposed to WaW? WaW is a far superior game and i think more relevant when speaking about what Treyarch is capable of. People seem to bring up CoD 3 as an excuse to show why Treyarch is inferior to IW.

Does the shirt fit properly?

" And don't even get me started on how completely shite the story was. "

Did you not mean "Shirt just got real?"
 
That is all.

" Does the shirt fit properly? "

" Did you not mean "Shirt just got real?"  That is all. "

 
And don't even get me started on how completely shite the story was. "

" I personally didn't like the JFK stuff either, in fact I found all the conspiracy theory/brainwashing stuff to be pretty cheesy.  Would have preferred to just keep on going on awesome missions where you eventually end up taking down the leader of the enemy.  The Reznov thing kind of just felt like they thought "Hey we should make some continuity between WAW and this" about 1/3 into the story-writing process and decided to put Reznov in it like that.  Either way, it was still quite a good and enjoyable campaign.  
 
Though the way they went with it, I feel like it would have been better to do this JFK mission at the end as a flashback and it would have felt more like Treyarch were dedicated to telling the story they wanted to tell.  Then it could end with Mason putting a gun in his mouth (from the agony of guilt and shame), but not letting you know if he went through with it.  The next Treyarch game could open up with the conclusion from that scene and it could go on from there depending on what they did with it. "

so... should I play the game? 

'The multiplayer... is acceptable. If I were being a cunt (I am) I would complain that the levels seem hastily thrown together as oppose to being carefully constructed. Modern Warfare 2, similar to Halo 3 and Team Fortress 2, always had a sense that the levels had been cultivated with purpose.  "

 As you may or may not already know, as this garnered a lot of media attention, there is a level entitled “No Russian” that honestly enters into the realm of bad taste. In it you play a deep cover C.I.A. agent attempting to get close to Vladimir Makarov, a former protege of COD4 antagonist Imran Zakhaev. You supposedly achieve this by helping him and his associates gun down hundreds of innocent Russian civilians in an airport. Now I am a firm believer in freedom of artistic expression and graphic acts of violence can be used to underline a very strong message that really could not be captured without it (think of the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan and how it redefined how the public thinks of war). However Modern Warfare 2 does not attempt to make any bold statements other than “this is a kick ass action game” so any pushing of boundaries is done solely for the purpose of pushing boundaries instead of trying to drive a worthwhile point home (think Hostel's torture porn). Yes other games are violent as well, especially Grand Theft Auto but that game functions as a satirical comedy. Even when people are bleeding to death in GTA they will make humourous comments to make it clear that the game is not reality. “No Russian”, in contrast, depicts people crawling in the floor writhing in their own blood and in incredible pain as graphically as I have seen in any video game. Again, in Saving Private Ryan you had the same thing but it served a purpose: illustrating that war is hell and what the veterans had to go through is something that non-veterans will never be able to truly imagine. However, to close my critique of single player on the validity of violence in art doesn't seem right. .    

I love that world war II mission, Communists are fun to shoot and all but they just aren't as fun to kill as Nazis. SCHIZAR GRENATEN!

I agree with Sweep.

I felt the single player was decent, but I never really felt my adrenaline going during the majority of the action packed scenes. I knew I was supposed to feel tense and excited but the most I could muster was a halfhearted "meh." There are some moments that made me roll my eyes at how hard they tried to replicate the "this is badass" moments of Modern Warfare 1 that even Modern Warfare 2 wasn't totally successful at doing. Like when Hudson puts on his sunglasses after a particular revelation with a guitar shredding in the background.....yeah. And I'll say it here, I'm getting tired with the amount of slow-mo that both MW2 and Black-Ops use. It was cool at first when an explosion or an enemy surprise attack was slowed down for effect, but now I'm just over it.
 
The multiplayer I'm actually enjoying way more than Modern Warfare 2. While the maps are admittedly worse than MW2, actually playing the game itself has proved to keep me joining game after game. Something MW2 struggled to do for me. The assault rifles are admittedly gimped but they do force you to use them at ranges they were meant to be used, mid-range. I can't tell you how many ridiculous long range shots I got in MW2 with the assault rifles. They were practically sniper rifles without scopes...unless you attached an ACOG, then it was just hell on earth. The perk system feels much more balanced, and I feel like I really did earn the pro versions of each perk. The whole purchasing of everything seems like a change that doesn't really make things better or worse, just different. If anything, it adds an extra thing to do after each battle where I realize that thing I just unlocked needs to be bought also. 
 
What I'm really impressed with is the wager match idea. I really wish these were integrated into the regular matches as well. Yes, it's still deathmatch but even deathmatch with a twist is better than just simple deathmatch. I don't feel the same playing one in the chamber or gun game as I do playing a regular old deathmatch game. The amount of tension and pleasure I have with these modes is awesome. My only problem is that the lowest range for wager matches is often not worth your time other than for the playing experience while the mid-range wager matches involve too much risk at the point I'm at. Of course, this varies from player to player as this could be precisely what makes the mid-range wager matches for others. After losing 6k dollars in mid-range wager matches however, I think I'll steer clear until I can afford to lose that much without batting an eye.
 
Overall, I feel like the single player falters in terms of gameplay and fun to MW2 but the story itself held my interest much better. I had to replay the MW2 campaign several times just to figure out what the hell just happened. The multiplayer is much more enjoyable than MW2 though.

I've yet to touch the single player still, but I've also been MIA for the past few days due to illness and haven't gotten to jump into that yet. 
 
However, I've played enough of the multiplayer to say that Black Ops' multiplayer is far more balanced, stabilized, and flat-out better than what Modern Warfare 2 had to offer.  I will say that the maps can feel a bit big at times, but once you've got the layouts down, they aren't nearly as big as you think they are.  Personally, I find the maps on here to be far more worthwhile, as the layouts feel far more organic than Modern Warfare's brand of "hey, let's force people down corridors and piss them off with grenade spammers" bullshit. 
 
It also took me a while to find a gun to my liking, but it's finally found its way into my virtual hands:  suppressed Galiel.  That thing will put some fucking hurt on someone. 
 
Sorry you are having a lukewarm experience with the game.  Maybe when I'm done blasting through Force Unleashed II (which I'm to understand doesn't take long and is something I should avoid, but it's that necessary train wreck I have to indulge in), I'll get to work on the single player campaign for Black Ops and some Zombies mode.

303!

I agree with you as usual, I liked the story though, maybe because so few games feature prison escapes for some reason.. it's great.

Interesting stuff. It's a shame to hear that the campaign mode isn't as well pulled off by Treyarch as it was by Infinity Ward as that was my favourite part of Modern Warfare 2, but it still does look very good. It's also a shame to hear that the multiplayer maps aren't as well-designed as they could be, I really hold a good appreciation for a very well-designed multiplayer map and that was one of the many things I appreciated about Halo 3.

Agreed. The maps in this game does not seem as thoroughly made as IWs maps. Also the credits system is a step back imo. Getting callsigns as a result of completing challenges seem more rewarding, than having to buy them. They aren't special anymore, and anyone can get them easilly.

Game seemed to copy a lot from MW2. 
 

• Rooftop escape, MW2 had a better one.
• The Motorcycle escape felt a lot like the Snowmobile escape but just not as good.
• Brutal Melee kills, MW2 had the best with the guys eyes rolling back into his head.
• Breaking into/out of prison, MW2 definitely better.

After some thought, I've decided that the single player isn't as good as either COD 4 or MW2. The set pieces aren't as totally ludicrous and I kind of expected the twist at the end. However, I think I've decided (perhaps a little too late) that I really don't like Call of Duty single player. All it involves is running from encounter to encounter, shooting wave of enemies after wave of enemies and then hiding behind cover every time a bullet so much as grazes you. 
 
However, I have to disagree with you on the Multiplayer. While I think most of the maps are... uninspired, the general balance of everything is much better. No more everyone picking stopping power, no more one man army grenade launcher spam (in fact, by making Grenade Launchers cost 4 times as much as any other attachment and making them unusable with Warlord, nobody bothers to use them), and no more quickscoping. On the other hand, Shotguns and Snipers kind of suck now.

You say that Treyarch is only comfortable with WWII style games as opposed to IW, but you don't seem to notice that the way battles play out in MW1 and MW2 are very much not modern at all.

Wow, I got my WM shirt before you and I'm in Australia! Finally, Aussies getting a leg-up in the important releases.

The multiplayer maps are a bit of a clusterfuck, but weapons seem to be way more balanced this time around. The sole exception being sniper rifles. Useless, useless sniper rifles.

Black Ops' story tried real hard to be interesting but then it ends in the most predictable, anti-climactic way possible. It's also guilty of blatantly copying every single cold war stereotype and hyping up the American war machine, with all its machismo and jingoism. It's pretty disappointing on that front. Gameplay wise I thought the campaign was all right, but it didn't tread any new ground at all.

I agree..... i should have held my fawning over Treyarch till i played this anti-climactic mess. With Infinity Ward in shambles and the future of CoD really in Treyarch hands i can see this going down hill fast.... unless Sledgehammer Games does something frikkin amazing.
 
I do also agree with the hastly throw together maps, but worst of all the Spawn points that seem to have been randomly created by a computer, a computer that does not care if you spawn facing a wall with an enemy spawning in behind you.
 
They did fix the reload after spawn problem though, good for them, that always bugged the fool outta me.

I'm done with the whole Call of Duty-thang for good.

" so... should I play the game?  "

Yeah, after getting more time with the multiplayer, it's no more balanced or fun than MW2 currently is.  Went back to MW2's online mode and had much more fun.  The campaign wasn't as good as MW2's in my opinion.  The only thing keeping me from regretting this decision is Combat Training(with splitscreen) and Zombies, even though I won't play it an awful lot, I do get a craving for a few matches here and there.  Do still enjoy all the maps though.  
 
@fentonalpha said:

"unless Sledgehammer Games does something frikkin amazing.  "

Eh, I thought the story telling was much better in black ops, really neat what they did with some of the last missions, and taking different perspectives, and whatnot. The story itself wasn't fantastic, as I called the end -really- early, and then called who the interrogators were probably 3/4ths through. But it was definitely enjoyable.  
 
Other than the couple sore spots like infinitely spawning enemies, and the difficulty of some of the 'nam levels compared to the rest... it was a good campaign. 
 
I'm enjoying the multiplayer too, and I appreciate the additions, but they're not going to keep me there as long as I did for say CoD4 for MW2, I think the formula's grating on me. Unless MW3 has some really significant changes, i might not buy it, just borrow it for the story.

Relax lads ... you are getting all this wrong: both MW2 and Black Ops sucks.. they are only satisfactory if you have no real experience with FPS and you think Michael Bay does "good" movies.