Alright, first of all - I let my curiosity get the better of me. For years I have laughed along with everyone else at the COD fanboys, the mindless shooter fans, the ones who would look sidelong at an RPG, mutter something about "too much reading," and move on. When I was able to pick up CoD: Black Ops for $8 on my PS3, I decided to give it a try. I've been playing it off and on for a few days now (I just won an achievement for playing five hours, which is just...wrong somehow) and it's finally time to write a bit about it, and get your impressions of the game.

Please keep in mind that this is my first exposure to a multiplayer shooter (okay, apparently SW: Battlefront II had online multiplayer). I bought it purely because CoD: Black Ops has two different modes (one with stats and unlockables, one with everything already unlocked) that allow me to play single player skirmish matches.

First off, let me say this - many, if not all of the criticisms leveled at CoD and its fans, seem to be valid. In some cases, laughably, stereotypically valid. Regenerating health is a joke, and apparently in place only to make people use the cover system. The game is full of ways to die instantly - it's not tactics or planning so much as speed and pinpoint accuracy that matter. That seems to go with the genre, so perhaps doesn't count as a valid criticism. The game itself isn't too terribly overall, but I think I would have been very peeved had I paid $60 for it.

The campaign is...well, I have no idea what it is, what it is about, or what I'm supposed to be doing in half the given levels. The three rules of CoD: Black Ops' campaign missions seem to be:

1: Everything explodes.
2: Everyone yells.
3: Everything else explodes.

I'm not sure if there are recurring characters. I finished the prison escape mission and was drained and overwhelmed. I had a similar experience last time I watched Cowboys vs. Aliens - it's not that it's a bad movie, it's that it never stops. The mission structure is bizarre and although there seems to be an overarching plot, it is rather perplexing and full of much groaning in pain. Seriously, I've seen Casino Royale, if Bond can tough that out, this Mason guy should be able to handle shock therapy. (On a side note, how did Mason get back to earth that fast? Shouldn't he still be on Mars?)

Combat Training (the sort-of-offline singlemultiplayer) is better. It's enjoyable, the weapons seem varied, shooting mechanics are fairly solid, but even on recruit difficulty both sides seem prone to cheap deaths. The AI generally scores headshots and is incapable of missing, so usually the game seems to be about staying under cover and spinning around constantly. Hit detection seems spotty - quite a few times, I've been sure I scored a headshot or tomahawk strike and the enemy has gunned me down as I was recovering.

Now, the amusing part to me was my two or three experiences in online play. I did decently well - finished fifth out of six in my next to last match, hee - but was struck by the prevalent stereotypes. In one lobby, a few guys were talking about their ability to tell how hot a girl was from her voice on chat (their words, not mine). In another, two kids were squawking at each other about their kill death rations. In a third, I and another newbie were threatened by name and told we'd be massacred (I relished shooting that fellow in the subsequent match, even if he did kill me ten or fifteen times). In another, a kid started complaining volubly after he was shot. I'm sure all multiplayer matches aren't like these, but it was amusing - all we lacked was someone cursing constantly whenever his teammates screwed up, and we would have been set!

Perhaps multiplayer is more enjoyable with people you know. Apparently combat training may be played with friends against bots, and that would be thoroughly entertaining.

I think my first draft came across too negative.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is this - CoD: Black Ops isn't a great game. I actually prefer Brink, as far as it goes (I do wish Brink had more game modes). It is fun, though, if you are just playing it for mindless entertainment. There are times when I'm studying, tired, and need a fifteen minute break, and this is the kind of game that suits that need perfectly. I don't really see the need to keep buying games from this series, but I don't regret buying CoD: Black Ops. I still reserve the right to laugh at rude or lewd online players, though.

Oh, and as a last random comment, the M14 is awesome.

I understand that a lot of people judge games too harshly or perhaps I judge them too lightly because I don't have many expectations or because I am more interested in a good story and to have fun when playing a game, rather than sink and immerse myself into it and find out things about my being or shape my worldview or other crap I am hearing at times from people who believe videogames shape characters - if you want to shape a character or understand what the world's about, read a damn book, don't play a CoD.

The thing is however, there are a few game series (CoD, TES, basically every series with a continuum of 5+ games which usually dominate the sales charts for long periods of time) that some "enlightened" and "mature" gamers believe that plainly suck and love to hate. That's fine, but I still believe that these people simply ask things from certain games while they know these games can't deliver, and then condemn them simply because they can't "satisfy" their needs. I never really was (nor am) a great CoD fan, haven't played them in multiplayer simply because I am not interested, but I still believe they have awesome and kickass single player campaigns. Yeah, they may not be the greatest storylines the world has ever seen and they suffer from cold-war syndromes (good US, bad Russia-which-is-still-influenced-by-USSR-ideals), but when I am playing a CoD, I don't really want a history lesson nor an exact and in-depth analysis of each time's political situation. I want to have fun and CoD manages to do that, by delivering tight and cinematic single-player campaigns (rather short), which I know I'll play every once in a while, because I do like them.

Obviously, a game of these series is not worth £50 or anything close to that, and that's the reason I haven't bought Black Ops and MW3 yet - I'll only play the single player anyway. However I understand that there are people out these who want to play the multiplayer as well and who may be able to pay such an amount, so I don't really complain. I played BF3s multiplayer as soon as it came out (the last game I bought day one) and I haven't touched it for a month, I've gotten bored of it, cheaters ruined the game and everyone was commenting on k/d ratios, so I left it and may go back some time in the future, but I still don't believe the multiplayer utterly sucks and that it's "full of 12 year olds" like everyone's saying about CoD. Opinions about videogames are like politics, you don't really get an absolute say on which party will rule the country (or the sales charts for that matter), you vote, but it's still the rest of the country which decides, so if the party you support doesn't win the elections, tough luck. Yeah, they're braindead masses alright, but you still can't do anything about it, so best thing to do is find something else to do/play until the next "elections".

But as I said, perhaps I judge videogames too lightly and other people are right with their reviews.

No, no - you made valid points. And as I tried to make clear above, I'm not the audience the game's made for. And you're right about one thing; it's simply wrong to judge a game based on things the game doesn't promise to deliver.

I don't think I ever got around to it in my review above, but I am enjoying the offline multiplayer quite a bit. I am finding the campaign perplexing and very explodey, though.

I was in the same position as you,. but regarding COD4. After years of scoffing at COD players and their games, Fallout 3: Operation Anchorage got me into the mood for a tactical shooter. I got COD4 for free off a friend, and dug in on the single player. I had a blast. The engine and the overall feel of the game were wonderful, and refreshing. The game had an "iPod" kindof feel to me, in that it borrowed the mechanics of games like Battlefield, Red Orchestra, et al, while distilling and refining them down to their essence.

I got smashed in the multiplayer, but I knew that would happen. If anything, PLAYING cod4 made me realize how inferior other FPS games are. You can hate on Activision, but the games are a real achievement.

CoD is great. I don't like the DLC crap that they're doing, but the base games are good.

(not that I'd get them for the full price, no freaking way)

My first thought was "Huh, $3 a map. I guess that's not horrible." My second thought was "Forget that, I paid $8 for the game and there's nothing wrong with the maps it came with."

Maybe if they made the DLCs into a proper expansion with more additional campaign missions and other stuff, but plain simple maps, no deal!

Ooh, or more perks. That would be nice.

Whenever I'm asking myself if I should buy a map pack for a game I'm playing, I ask myself three things: Have I memorized all the maps I have so they're boring; can I think of anything my current maps are missing that would be really neat; are the new maps more of the same with different hallways and alleys?

Youtube helps so much for that. Haven't looked up COD's map packs yet on it, though, I'm still learning the ones I have.

Half of the world's condemning opinion about CoD is what you just said - the fact that the games come out every year, are identical, and cost (along with expansions) quite a hefty amount. The MW series could have been a great base game with expansions that added small campaigns (like MW2 and MW3, along with other scenarios and Special Ops) and map packs at a normal starting price (25$ for example) per year and the series would obliterate any other FPS from the face of the earth (which is not good, I am just saying).

Anyway, I don't mind waiting another year to play Black Ops. :-P

+1

Yep, +1 from me too!

Sounds about right to me. I only played COD4 (and maybe some of the earlier ones, I don't remember), and only in singleplayer, and I think I had fun, but there was nothing really memorable that stuck with me. And critics/gamers usually say this was the best COD, right?
For multiplayer, I prefer team-based, at least somewhat tactical games. I believe I played only Counterstrike and L4D2 for more than a negligible amount of time. During some of the sales, I though about trying out BF:BC2, though ;)

COD4 pretty much had the right balance of the recent COD games. Very good SP and excellent multi. Ones coming after it were either too short SP wise or the multiplayer was **** (im looking at you MW2 and 3). Black Ops was pretty fun for MP AFTER what seemed like hundreds of patches.

I skipped Black Ops. I think I played it on a free weekend.

However, I've played a ton of pretty much every major CoD since the first game.

The series is garbage, and is doing more harm to the game industry than... sports games.

However, I find myself enjoying them. Quite a bit. More so than I should.

CoD 1, 2 and 4 had some excellent campaigns though, I will say that.
Juggernaut and martyrdom? Those kinda ruined the CoD 4 multiplayer balance for me.

Not that I'm saying the later ones are more balanced, just CoD 4 had major annoyances for me. I still find calling in brutal killstreaks that do all the work for you and last stand needs to be removed. Seriously, you can kill someone, then they get an extra amount of health with last stand and you die, or someone steals the kill. So annoying. Even if they bleed out, you wont get the points. I think Black Ops changed that but MW3 kept it stupid.