Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII
Year: 2018
Developer: Treyarch
Publisher: Activision
Platform: PC, PS4, Xbox One
BBFC: 18
Published: 24/10/23
Developer: Treyarch
Publisher: Activision
Platform: PC, PS4, Xbox One
BBFC: 18
Published: 24/10/23
Multiplayer has been the primary draw of the Call of Duty franchise ever since the franchise debuted on Xbox 360. With the introduction of persistent unlocks in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the franchise changed multiplayer gaming forever to ensure that games were playing longer and more frequently, always chasing that next reward. This formula worked really well for the best part of a decade, but as mobile gaming rose in prominence so did the free-to-play model of games. A free download that pushed in-game purchases, and this ended up extending into multiplayer titles too, most famously Epic Games’ Fortnite. What made Fortnite such a huge hit was that it was free to play, the in-app purchases were almost exclusively aesthetic, you could play against people on different platforms to you, and of course the game’s signature gameplay mode, Battle Royale. The Battle Royale genre exploded in popularity around the mid-late 2010’s following the success of games like Fortnite and PlayerUknown’s Battlegrounds (now known as PUBG: Battlegrounds). They were raking in the cash and their ever-growing player counts were causing a notable dip in various other hit multiplayer titles, most notably Call of Duty. But Activision and developer Treyarch had a quick-fix solution up their sleeves. Use the Black Ops brand to entice players back to Call of Duty with their own take on a Battle Royale; but they needed to do this quick or risk missing the boat entirely. So, when the fourth Black Ops title dropped just two years after Black Ops III, players were surprised as Activision had announced three-year development cycles for all Call of Duty games going forwards, but what because evident almost immediately was that significant corners had to be cut in order to make Activision’s demands a reality, and Black Ops IIII (No, not 4, not IV…IIII) was going to be a tough pill for some to swallow.
This is normally where I would talk about the story for a game, but Black Ops IIII (seriously, what’s with that numbering system!?) ditches all single player content in favour of an expanded multiplayer suite, appealing to fans of everything Call of Duty online. The aim of this was to focus as much time and resources as possible into the new Battle Royale mode, Blackout, as was humanly possible. The problem is, that the biggest appeal of the games that used Battle Royale modes as their main selling point were that…well, you didn’t need to sell them, they were free. Black Ops IIII (never gets easier) meanwhile carried a full fat £60 price tag, the same as any other AAA videogame releasing at the time. Now to some that might seem as though you’re being sold short on content (and I’d argue you’re right), but Black Ops IIII (I really hate that so much) does at least try to give you your money’s worth in terms of content. But is it good content, and why should you have bought this over the competition, which includes its predecessor, Black Ops III?
This is normally where I would talk about the story for a game, but Black Ops IIII (seriously, what’s with that numbering system!?) ditches all single player content in favour of an expanded multiplayer suite, appealing to fans of everything Call of Duty online. The aim of this was to focus as much time and resources as possible into the new Battle Royale mode, Blackout, as was humanly possible. The problem is, that the biggest appeal of the games that used Battle Royale modes as their main selling point were that…well, you didn’t need to sell them, they were free. Black Ops IIII (never gets easier) meanwhile carried a full fat £60 price tag, the same as any other AAA videogame releasing at the time. Now to some that might seem as though you’re being sold short on content (and I’d argue you’re right), but Black Ops IIII (I really hate that so much) does at least try to give you your money’s worth in terms of content. But is it good content, and why should you have bought this over the competition, which includes its predecessor, Black Ops III?
Let’s talk about Blackout first, seeing as that’s what the game was primarily sold on. With a limit of one hundred players, Blackout sees you drop into a massive multiplayer arena, consisting of various iconic locations from Black Ops multiplayer maps as well as a handful of new ones, to do battle either in small squads or on your own. You'll enter the arena with no weapons or equipment, and you’ll need to scavenge everything as you go. If it sounds like any other Battle Royale game then you’d be correct, because it is...in fact I would say that Blackout has less of an identity than any of its other competitors because it doesn’t have building or crafting elements. It really is just Call of Duty multiplayer, on a massive map, and you need to collect everything as you go. Once you’re dead that’s it, game over for you, last man standing wins. Now to give Blackout a fair trial, I don’t like Battle Royale modes anyway, but there are a number of reasons I think Blackout is one of the worst iterations of the mode at the time of release and it all comes down to that £60 price tag. There were two top dogs of Battle Royale at the time, Fortnite which was free to play, and PUBG that only had a small initial purchase price of less than £20. Now you could argue that you’re getting a lot more content for your money with Black Ops IIII and so that £60 is more justified, but then I draw your attention to the other content on offer, and it’s mostly content that was available in previous Call of Duty games. There’s little about Black Ops IIII that’s new apart from Blackout, and honestly, Blackout is one of the worst Battle Royale’s I’ve played because it’s just so bland.
So, what about traditional multiplayer? Black Ops IIII is largely the same as Black Ops II in this regard with one entirely new gameplay mechanic, and one that’s evolved from Black Ops III. So, it’s a more traditional, boots on the ground Call of Duty experience, no jetpacks or wallrunning, and so it’s slightly less twitchy to play. In fact, I largely liked the feel of Black Ops IIII’s multiplayer, especially coming off the back of WWII’s similarly grounded approach. Black Ops IIII re-introduces the specialists but expands the roster from six to ten. Each specialist is designed for a unique playstyle, which I felt was a bit of a stretch in Black Ops III but here is almost a blatant lie because of the five specialists I played during my time with it they all played almost identically. Aside from having some slightly different equipment, they all used the same weapons and controlled the same way. The biggest change to Black Ops IIII’s multiplayer is non-regenerative health. Instead, players are given a limited number of health boosters that restore any damage you have taken, intended to be used sparingly and tactically.
Black Ops IIII’s multiplayer is a mixed bag. On the one hand I’m quite a big fan of the non-regenerative health, and I enjoyed the feel of Black Ops II’s multiplayer, so I felt right at home here in IIII. But the specialists feel almost redundant, and that was one of the more interesting elements of Black Ops III because it put a greater emphasis on you tailoring your playstyle to your chosen specialist.
I suppose I should also mention that there is ‘single-player content’ in the form of Specialist Headquarters, short solo missions for each specialist that act as tutorials for the characters unique abilities. Now because each character doesn’t play all that different when used in a match, these Headquarters missions feel so far removed from how you would actually use the character in a given situation. Plus, they’re all so short I couldn’t possibly qualify them as content, they take mere minutes each and you could easily do all of them in under two hours.
So, what about traditional multiplayer? Black Ops IIII is largely the same as Black Ops II in this regard with one entirely new gameplay mechanic, and one that’s evolved from Black Ops III. So, it’s a more traditional, boots on the ground Call of Duty experience, no jetpacks or wallrunning, and so it’s slightly less twitchy to play. In fact, I largely liked the feel of Black Ops IIII’s multiplayer, especially coming off the back of WWII’s similarly grounded approach. Black Ops IIII re-introduces the specialists but expands the roster from six to ten. Each specialist is designed for a unique playstyle, which I felt was a bit of a stretch in Black Ops III but here is almost a blatant lie because of the five specialists I played during my time with it they all played almost identically. Aside from having some slightly different equipment, they all used the same weapons and controlled the same way. The biggest change to Black Ops IIII’s multiplayer is non-regenerative health. Instead, players are given a limited number of health boosters that restore any damage you have taken, intended to be used sparingly and tactically.
Black Ops IIII’s multiplayer is a mixed bag. On the one hand I’m quite a big fan of the non-regenerative health, and I enjoyed the feel of Black Ops II’s multiplayer, so I felt right at home here in IIII. But the specialists feel almost redundant, and that was one of the more interesting elements of Black Ops III because it put a greater emphasis on you tailoring your playstyle to your chosen specialist.
I suppose I should also mention that there is ‘single-player content’ in the form of Specialist Headquarters, short solo missions for each specialist that act as tutorials for the characters unique abilities. Now because each character doesn’t play all that different when used in a match, these Headquarters missions feel so far removed from how you would actually use the character in a given situation. Plus, they’re all so short I couldn’t possibly qualify them as content, they take mere minutes each and you could easily do all of them in under two hours.
Finally, there’s zombies, and I think you can tell how this is going to go down. Black Ops IIII Zombies is pretty much just Black Ops III zombies, which is pretty much just what Treyarch have been doing with the zombies mode since its inception in 2008. I don’t like it, I never have, and Black Ops IIII does nothing to change that. The biggest new addition to the mode is the ability to more easily identify story objectives, a complaint I have had about the mode since the early days. So, I appreciate that this has now been included because it gives me something tangible to work with, but I’m still not having a good time with it. I hate how long it takes to get going, and then once it does get going you can’t actually concentrate on the objective because you’re too busy sprinting around the map like a madman. I just find it a colossal waste of time, and I know plenty of people love it, so I’m clearly wrong, but my opinion remains steadfast, I don’t like this mode.
Does Black Ops IIII at least offer a decent visual upgrade considering that Treyarch could focus their efforts much more on content that’s easier to produce? Nope. It’s running on the same engine that Black Ops III (and by extension Black Ops II) ran on. It looks significantly inferior to the previous year’s Call of Duty: WWII, and to the year before that, Infinite Warfare. It’s arguably even inferior in many ways to Black Ops III because it never gets the opportunity to show the engine’s capabilities off in some artistically minded level design or cutscenes. Instead, it’s relegated to just generating multiplayer maps with the same flat lighting style, a significant lack of fog, particles, or bloom, and just using the same generic looking assets over and over. It’s just so boring to look at, and it lacks all personality.
I can’t think of a single reason to recommend Black Ops IIII. It would have been hard enough at release with a £60 price tag for what amounts to a poor man's Battle Royale, a multiplayer suite that’s been effectively borrowed from a game that released five years prior, and a zombies mode that’s not really any different to the previous iteration. Like at that point you might as well just buy Black Ops III and you’ll get everything other than Blackout, and it would have cost significantly less.
Now though, it’s impossible to recommend Black Ops IIII. Because you still need to pay for it, and Activision released Call of Duty: Warzone just one year later. A free to play, standalone Battle Royale game that has received content updates and patches ever since (even going so far as having a sequel now in Warzone 2.0). Why would you pay for Blackout, when you have a larger and more fully realised Battle Royale mode in Warzone?
There is no place for Black Ops IIII in this world. There never was, and it has shameless cash grab written clear as day all over it. This is by far the worst Call of Duty game to date, because it doesn’t even try to offer you something new or exciting. It’s just trying to sell you the same stuff you already have, or copy someone else's homework for the new content. A horrendous game with a horrendous name, can we all just swiftly forget this game ever existed?
Does Black Ops IIII at least offer a decent visual upgrade considering that Treyarch could focus their efforts much more on content that’s easier to produce? Nope. It’s running on the same engine that Black Ops III (and by extension Black Ops II) ran on. It looks significantly inferior to the previous year’s Call of Duty: WWII, and to the year before that, Infinite Warfare. It’s arguably even inferior in many ways to Black Ops III because it never gets the opportunity to show the engine’s capabilities off in some artistically minded level design or cutscenes. Instead, it’s relegated to just generating multiplayer maps with the same flat lighting style, a significant lack of fog, particles, or bloom, and just using the same generic looking assets over and over. It’s just so boring to look at, and it lacks all personality.
I can’t think of a single reason to recommend Black Ops IIII. It would have been hard enough at release with a £60 price tag for what amounts to a poor man's Battle Royale, a multiplayer suite that’s been effectively borrowed from a game that released five years prior, and a zombies mode that’s not really any different to the previous iteration. Like at that point you might as well just buy Black Ops III and you’ll get everything other than Blackout, and it would have cost significantly less.
Now though, it’s impossible to recommend Black Ops IIII. Because you still need to pay for it, and Activision released Call of Duty: Warzone just one year later. A free to play, standalone Battle Royale game that has received content updates and patches ever since (even going so far as having a sequel now in Warzone 2.0). Why would you pay for Blackout, when you have a larger and more fully realised Battle Royale mode in Warzone?
There is no place for Black Ops IIII in this world. There never was, and it has shameless cash grab written clear as day all over it. This is by far the worst Call of Duty game to date, because it doesn’t even try to offer you something new or exciting. It’s just trying to sell you the same stuff you already have, or copy someone else's homework for the new content. A horrendous game with a horrendous name, can we all just swiftly forget this game ever existed?