Diehard fans of Call of Duty’s groundbreakingly successful battle royale – Warzone – have been eagerly anticipating the release of a new map for months now. If Activision gets this one right, the new map’s debut could mark a huge, positive step forward for an already well-to-do title. However, if certain rumors surrounding the map change turn out to be true, fans may be left feeling robbed.

Over the past few months, Warzone has introduced nuclear weapons onto the game’s primary map, Verdansk. The warheads are hidden in secret bunkers across the map, all of which contain computers displaying an ominous countdown.

Rumors suggest this will culminate with the map blowing to smithereens, after which a new map will be introduced into the game. For example, leakers ZestyCOD and ModernWarzone both claim “a nuclear explosion event” will introduce a new map on April 22, as reported by Screen Rant.

If such a change does arrive, its introduction may disappoint and even anger fans, should certain rumors turn out to be true.

A Slight Redesign

Some of these rumors imply the new map will feature the Russian Ural Mountains, an area currently featured in the Fireteam: Dirty Bomb and Zombies’ Outbreak modes of Black Ops Cold War, according to Charlie Intel.

This would be just the sort of breath of fresh air that players have been waiting for.

Other rumors, however, predict Verdansk will simply undergo an aesthetic redesign to better align the map with Black Ops Cold War. Verdansk will remain virtually the same, albeit with a slight 1980s makeover.

Activision could also decide to set the nukes off, destroying certain sections of the map – turning buildings into rubble and adding the occasional large crater – while keeping Verdansk largely as it was.

Should Activision opt for the easy way out by only adding slight aesthetic changes, players will likely be enraged, and rightly so. This map has been hyped up and hinted at for months now. Players are expecting something huge. Activision needs to deliver on those promises or else be forced to deal with a pissed-off fan base.

Deleting Verdansk

There’s another possible map change to Warzone that could elicit an equally venomous response from fans. Activision could delete the Verdansk map entirely.

Well-known industry insider Tom Henderson claimed on Twitter that this will indeed be the case, saying “The current plan for Warzone is that Verdansk will never return.”

“There’s no separate playlist, map voting, or anything like that. Warzone is Warzone and Warzone is 1 map. Warzone will continue to change its map as the story progresses.”

Since its debut over a year ago, Warzone has become the preeminent battle royale map. Due in large part to Verdansk’s brilliant layout, the game has remained endlessly replayable for all that time. Destroying something fans have grown to love over the course of a year and leaving no option for them to return, would be a horrible mistake – one that Activision would certainly have to answer for.

What Gamers Are Hoping For

The nukes on Verdansk are going to go off. We all know this is going to happen. Activision should deliver on their implied promise. They should use the event as an opportunity to introduce a brand-new map. What the gaming industry giant should try to avoid, however, is forgetting what made Warzone successful in the first place.

When the dust settles, there should be two maps in Warzone – Verdansk and a new map. Anything less would be a disappointment to Warzone diehards.

Let’s hope Activision makes the right choice.

We don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Call of Duty: Warzone is insanely popular.

Warzone is a free-to-play battle royale title based on the technology that powered 2019’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. While Warzone was released months after Modern Warfare, it essentially became “the” way to play the game in just a few weeks.

Maybe that’s because the game is actually very good. Warzone is more grounded than a battle royale title like Fortnite, but it’s not nearly as rigid as a game like PUBG. It’s similar to Apex Legends in terms of speed, but many have praised it for its lack of character abilities which they feel greatly helps the title’s gameplay balancing. It certainly doesn’t hurt that Warzone benefits from the strength of the Call of Duty name which lends it global appeal and a global size player base.

But as Call of Duty fans know, nothing lasts forever. In fact, most recent Call of Duty games haven’t been supported for more than a year. This has led some fans to wonder whether or not Activision should continue to support Call of Duty: Warzone as a standalone experience even as they reportedly prepare to release a new Black Ops game in 2020.

It’s a great question. In fact, you may recall that we raised a similar question in regards to the previous Call of Duty battle royale mode (Call of Duty: Black Ops 4‘s Blackout mode).

However, Warzone has something that Blackout did not. More accurately, it doesn’t have something that Blackout did: a price tag.

You needed to own Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 to play Blackout, but you don’t need to own Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in order to play Warzone. Even if Warzone was just a re-release of Blackout, that move to free-to-play would have almost certainly ensured it grew to be more popular than its predecessor. Instead, developer Infinity Ward went and improved the ideas of Blackout in nearly every respect and even threw in a few genre innovations (most notably Warzone‘s brilliant Gulag concept). The result is arguably the best battle royale game on the market.

Given what we’ve seen from Activision in the past and their belief that a degree of turnover and “newness” helps strengthen the Call of Duty brand, we’re almost certain that Call of Duty 2020 will introduce a new battle royale mode. It might even launch with the “base” game this time around.

Yet, there’s a part of us that’s left wondering “why bother?” Warzone is already a hit, and even though the Call of Duty franchise is more or less on autopilot hit mode at the moment, there’s a very real chance that the next Call of Duty game’s battle royale mode will disappoint Warzone fans everywhere. On top of that, it’s a free-to-play game, which means its not really tied to anything but its visuals.

You could argue that Call of Duty fans may be more inclined to abandon something that is visually dated, but Fortnite has proven that millions will stick with the right multiplayer experience even if it’s not the best looking game around. Besides, it’s highly unlikely that early next-gen games are going to look significantly better than current-gen games.

The sad truth of the matter is, though, that Activision has put themselves in this awkward position where their fans have essentially come to expect something new even when the current project is doing quite fine and can be grown into something even better. If a new Call of Duty battle royale isn’t released in 2020 (or soon thereafter) the conversation will likely be dominated by fans wondering where that game is.

What we’ll all just have to hope for, then, is a day when Activision surprises millions by releasing a popular free-to-play game that they intend to stick with for years to come via exciting and consistent content updates. As we learned from their history as Destiny‘s publishers, though, that possibility isn’t likely.

For weeks now, we’ve heard everyone associated with Riot’s Valorant describe it as a blend of Overwatch and Counter-Strike. It appeared to be a game that featured unique characters with special abilities but emphasized gunplay, tactics, and teamwork above all.

Now that Valorant has entered closed beta and thousands have gotten the chance to play the game, we can confirm that description is very much accurate. Unfortunately, that could be bad news for a generation raised on Fortnite and Call of Duty.

First off, Valorant may combine elements of Overwatch and Counter-Strike, but the ratio so far appears to be 90% Counter-Strike and about 10% Overwatch. It might even be a little more weighted towards Counter-Strike than that. Yes, Valorant features characters with unique abilities and ultimates, but so far, the impact of those abilities has been relatively minor compared to what we see in other, similar shooters.

What you’re left with, then, is a game that emphasizes nearly every point that set Counter-Strike apart way back in 1999. It features fast-paced gameplay without respawns (at least in most cases) that demands you coordinate with your team and possess some truly exceptional aim and awareness.

The funniest thing about Valorant‘s gameplay isn’t that it apes Counter-Strike but that it’s one of the few games that has been released since Counter-Strike to truly do so. Counter-Strike was a significant departure from the more popular fast-paced arena shooters of its era. While that particular style is no longer dominant, more competitive shooters released since its debut have leaned towards things like abilities, respawns, and even light RPG elements.

For a generation of fans who grew up in the time of Halo, Call of Duty, and even Fortnite, that could be a big problem when it comes to truly “getting” Valorant.

Let’s be clear right now: this is not a matter of trying to say that people who play those kinds of games aren’t skilled enough to play Valorant. Many of them (certainly the best among them) may indeed be able to adapt to the game.

However, Valorant emphasizes such a different set of skills from most other popular shooters of the last 20 years or so that we can only imagine there will be a lot of people who try it, die over and over again, and are left with the conclusion that they are either doing something wrong or that the game just isn’t good. We’re already seeing this effect among some streamers and other players who never really got into the Counter-Strike scene and are clearly struggling to make the transition.

This is quite honestly a huge hurdle for Valorant. Just the fact that the game is clearly designed to be played on a mouse and keyboard when so many shooters have made concessions designed to accommodate console controller play is enough to potentially put off people who can’t make pixel-perfect shots in tense situations.

Mechanics aside, Valorant requires you to rely on an entirely different mindset than other shooters. Unlike Call of Duty and Fortnite where it’s either every man for themselves or team modes that rarely require coordination, Valorant demands almost constant communication. Unless you are so much more mechanically gifted than your opponents, you will need to be aware of what your teammates are doing, what equipment they’re buying, and why that person just died.

There’s also the issue of the frustration this style of gameplay naturally causes. Dying in Fortnite feels bad, but the nature of the battle royale genre means that you almost kind of expect to die at some point and just hop into a new game. Call of Duty can get really annoying, but you’re usually just a respawn away from getting back into the action.

Valorant constantly reminds you of the fact that you’re not playing well enough via quick deaths that often come from unseen foes. Much like Dark Souls, it tries to tell you what you’re doing wrong by killing you every time you don’t do something right. While that can be very rewarding, we don’t blame people who don’t find that style to be particularly fun.

And that’s what makes this whole situation so fascinating. In Valorant, Riot has used their considerable resources to develop a shooter with mechanics that could be described as niche despite the popularity of Counter-Strike. Valorant continues to gain momentum throughout its early access period, but what happens when the general public loses their first several matches and walk away from the game entirely. For that matter, what happens if Valorant isn’t even able to win over the Counter-Strike crowd?

We’ll find out the answers to these questions soon enough, but one thing is clear right now. If you go into Valorant expecting it to chase the ideas of existing popular games, you’re going to have a bad time.

Figures compiled by the NDP Group have seemingly revealed the top-selling video games of the decade. In many ways, the list (which accounts for revenue as well as total sales) is not that surprising. Grand Theft Auto 5 and Red Dead Redemption 2 rank high. Mario Kart 8 did extremely well, and it turns out that a lot of people really have bought The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim across various platforms.

In terms of individual entries, the list is about what you’d expect. However, it’s difficult to look at the list and not be just a little surprised by the sheer dominance of the Call of Duty franchise.

Call of Duty games occupy half the spots on the list of the 20 best selling games of the decade. For those keeping counts, that means that every Call of Duty game released over the last 10 years was one of the best selling games of the decade. Seven of those games were among the 10 best selling titles during that same time period.

There’s always room for some errors during calculations such as this, but for the moment, let’s just assume that these figures are right. Our question now is, “How did this happen, and does Call of Duty really deserve this level of success?”

In case you’re wondering, I wouldn’t really consider myself to be a Call of Duty fan. I’ve played some of the games in the series, I’ve enjoyed many of them, but I’m definitely not among the millions (and millions) that are apparently buying these titles every year. Truth be told, though, I was under the impression that even those who do consider themselves fans of this series were also not really buying into the franchise anymore.

Let me explain. See, the decade in Call of Duty starts off well enough with Call of Duty: Black Ops receiving good reviews from both critics and fans. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 would be met by a somewhat similar reception a couple of years later.

However, many of the other Call of Duty haven’t been so lucky. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 boasts a whopping 3.4 user score on Metacritic. Call of Duty: Ghosts has a 3.8, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare sports a much better 5.7, but Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 brings us back down to a 4.8 before Infinite Warfare shocks us all with a 3.8 score. No subsequent Call of Duty game rose above a 4.9 since then.

You may be wondering why I’m focusing on those scores. Well, for quite some time, I just had the perception that Call of Duty was one of those games that critics tended to look down on but fans generally loved. In reality, though, critics tend to give the series fairly good reviews while fans are the ones who typically slam it across review sites. Yet, here we are with the series ranking shockingly high amongst the best selling games in recent memory.

So what’s going on here? If the series biggest fans have seemingly spent most of the decade trashing the progress (or lack thereof) of the Call of Duty franchise, then how is it that the series continues to be unbelievably successful?

There are a few likely answers to that question, and none of them are very encouraging.

First off, it’s quite possible that these reviews don’t really represent the voices of the series’ biggest fans (at least in terms of who keeps buying these games). Those voices likely belong to that large number of people who own a PlayStation or Xbox, still don’t really identify themselves as “gamers,” and typically buy a couple of games a year (one of which certainly seems to be Call of Duty). Given the nature of the game, we’re likely talking about 18-30-year-old males. Considering the history of the Call of Duty franchise, we’re also talking about a franchise that has seemingly crossed the generation gap (at least relative to that age range).

That’s not the most telling part, though. What’s truly troubling is when you realize that a lot of those people who complained about the Call of Duty games probably kept buying them year after year anyway. It’s clear that the series has become comfort food at this point, and it’s clear that people are still asking for seconds even after they’ve had their fill.

None of this is to say that the Call of Duty games are necessarily bad, but more than anything, these numbers represent a sometimes frustrating sense of complacency that can settle into the entertainment industry. For the time being, it seems like the Call of Duty franchise is largely immune to the complaints of its most vocal critics and (in some cases) its biggest supporters. Then again, sales will almost always best criticism.

More than anything, though, these numbers prove that once a franchise gets its hooks in people, it’s hard to get them out. Yet, at a time when franchise games are abandoning the annual release strategy and sports titles seem to be (relatively) plummeting down the charts, you’ve got to wonder whether Call of Duty will remain comfort food for the next 10 years or whether or more diverse series of titles may finally take its place.

The reveal of the new Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and its “ripped from the headlines” story has gotten people talking about Call of Duty‘s controversial moments. Already, a scene in the new Call of Duty involving a child in a village has people cringing in their seats.

Still, the new Call of Duty game would have to be pretty crazy in order to top the most controversial Call of Duty moments of all-time.

Fake Terrorist Attack in Singapore

This list is in no particular order, but this has to be the most meaningless and idiotic controversy in Call of Duty history.

For some reason, Activision decided to promote Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 by changing Call of Duty‘s Twitter account to “Current Event Aggregate.” They then began tweeting about a fake terrorist attack in Singapore, with almost no indication it was a promo for the game.

Call of Duty was the last game franchise at this time that needed viral marketing, much less something this short-sighted.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2’s No Russian Level

Undoubtedly the most famous Call of Duty controversy, “No Russian” is an infamous part of the franchise’s history.

This Modern Warfare 2 level saw you pose as a member of a terrorist group who shot their way through an airport of innocent civilians. You didn’t technically have to shoot anyone (and a later patch let you skip the segment), but the segment hit too close to home given its similarity to actual mass shootings.

More on that later…

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3’s London Scene

Modern Warfare 3‘s developers apparently felt they had to top the “No Russian” level of Modern Warfare 2. Well…they certainly came close.

This scene in MW 3 featured a terrorist attack in London that was not only not that far removed from a fairly recent terrorist attack in London but centered around a young child being killed.

It was seen as an instance of “cheap heat” solely intended to generate controversy and live up to series standards.

Fighting Against Grenade Spam

Oh boy…

So, there was a Modern Warfare 2 commercial featuring a joke about grenade spam in multiplayer. The problem is that someone decided that the fake organization promoting the commercial should be called the Fight Against Grenade Spam.

That organization’s unfortunate acronym didn’t do much to curb Call of Duty‘s reputation as the home of immature and toxic gamers.

No Nazis in World War II Multiplayer

In an attempt to be more politically correct, the developers of Call of Duty: WWII decided to remove Nazi imagery and references in the game’s competitive multiplayer mode.

Their attempts were met with a mixed reaction. Alongside claims of trying to alter history, fans noted that this inclusive approach led to the questionable ability to have certain races and sexes fighting for a German army that probably wouldn’t have been that welcoming to them.

The Assassination of Fidel Castro

Call of Duty: Black Ops‘ alternative history campaign saw players take a trip through time. Along the way, they had the opportunity to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

It turns out that Castro was a body double, but the level did not go over big in Cuba where it created a minor international incident. The Cuban government made no attempt to hide their displeasure regarding this scene and even implied that it “it stimulates sociopathic attitudes in North American children and adolescents.”

Advanced Fish A.I.

It’s one of the dumbest controversies on this list, but it’s a controversy nonetheless.

While promoting Call of Duty: Ghosts, developer Infinity Ward promoted the game’s advanced fish A.I. which sees them scatter from you as you move closer. It was a pointless feature that had been done many times before, and Call of Duty fans saw it as a sign of diminishing creativity.

Infinity Ward tried to play it off as a joke, but not everyone was convinced.

Akimbo Model 1887 Weapon

Here’s a nice gameplay controversy to help mix things ups.

In short, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 allowed players to dual-wield Model 1887 shotguns. The problem was that these weapons could be combined with a series of perks that made them comically overpowered.

What makes these guns that much more controversial is the fact that it took 2 patches to fix them. The first patch left out some important fixes, meaning that these guns dominated the game for way too long.

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare Goes Full Sci-Fi

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare was actually a pretty good game, but it attracted one of the most negative gut reactions of any title in the franchise.

After Call of Duty had already gone sci-fi with Advanced Warfare, fans had a field day tearing into Infinite Warfare, which was closer to a Halo game than a Call of Duty title.

To this day, the Infinite Warfare reveal trailer features almost 4 million dislikes to just 600 thousand likes.

Call of Duty And Various Real-Life Shootings

Without naming names, there have been various people over the years who admitted to playing quite a bit of Call of Duty leading up to them committing a horrific mass shooting.

There are quite a few factors to consider here that make it hard to just blame Call of Duty, but the game’s association with these incidents remains one of its greatest controversies.

Just when we thought the battle royale genre was growing stale and that the competition had no chance of encroaching upon the genre’s biggest names, along comes Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 and Blackout mode.

Blackout is a lot like every other battle royale game. It sees you and 87 or 99 other players (depending on the mode) occupy a single map. That map is filled with weapons, supplies, and vehicles that you will need as you compete to become the last man (or squad) standing.

Blackout will be especially familiar to those who played the genre innovator, PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. That is to say that it favors a more militaristic approach, emphasizes weapon modifications, utilizes vehicles, and is more about tactical combat. However, because this is Call of Duty, the mode also features quite a few ridiculous weapons, roaming zombies, and a much greater emphasis on fast combat.

The result is something quite special. Blackout is one of the smoothest, deepest, and most engaging battle royale experiences out there. It’s easy to learn, tough to master, and consistently provides exciting matchups. It may not have the widespread appeal of Fortnite, but it figures to become a phenomenon in and of itself.

Well…at least until next year.

For quite some time, Call of Duty games have been “replaced” by next year’s game. They may not all share the same name, game modes, settings, or developers, but the name “Call of Duty” has typically been enough to inspire fans to pick up the latest game on the market.

It’s an approach that has made publisher Activision quite a bit of money over the years, but it’s an approach that creates a fascinating predicament. See, Blackout shouldn’t go anywhere but up. It certainly shouldn’t be replaced or ignored when the next Call of Duty game comes out.

However, that doesn’t mean it won’t be replaced or ignored. The popular fear is that Activision will simply put a new Blackout mode in the next Call of Duty game and ask everyone to just buy that one to keep playing.

That makes a little sense – and many people may do just that – but titles like Fortnite have become the money machines they are because they are constantly updated experiences that require little (or even no) money from the players. Instead, they encourage people to spend money by virtue of being great games with hundreds of hours of gameplay.

In theory, Activision could just ask developer Treyarch to keep updating the current Blackout mode. However, we don’t know if they will. At present, there’s not much incentive to spend additional money on Blackout. Even if there was, we wonder if enough people who already purchased a $60 game are going to feel like spending more and more money on the mode. Besides, Activision is going to want them to work on Black Ops V at some point.

Worst of all, Activision might simply ignore Blackout by the time the next Call of Duty game roles around. That’s not a very likely option, but it wouldn’t be entirely unheard of either.

No matter how you look at it, Activision has to make a tough decision when it comes to Blackout. If they make the wrong one, they risk ruining one of the best things to come out of the Call of Duty franchise in years. The problem is that nobody can seem to agree what the right decision is.

“Everyone dies all the time,” he said. “It’s Call of Duty. It doesn’t matter.”

I’ve played Call of Duty since then, and he’s right. It’s a series that portrays death as a minor nuisance; annoying, but nothing to be scared of. That’s not unusual for a video game, but in the context of Call of Duty it feels strange. It’s a war game. Death should be important. Unlike other titles, Call of Duty sells itself on its realism — but how realistic is a simulation that only captures a physical experience, not an emotional one?

This tension is even more jarring because Call of Duty gets so many of the aesthetics right. Look at Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, which comes out on Xbox and PlayStation consoles this week. The game’s set about forty years in the future, but Sledgehammer Games took great pains to make everything as realistic as possible. The studio worked with an active Department of Defense “scenario planner” to develop Advanced Warfare’s fictional timeline. All of the game’s weapons are based on real-world prototypes; during the design process, anything that could be considered “science fiction” got cut.

But accuracy isn’t authenticity, and these are all surface details. The marketing copy promises that the power of next-gen consoles will deliver “a new hi-tech, advanced arsenal and ability set,” but there’s no mention of how new technology will better emulate war’s emotional toll.

So, what would happen if someone tried to make a war game focused on psychology, not action? You might get This War of Mine.

Like Call of Duty, This War of Mine aims to create realistic war experience. However, where Call of Duty recreates combat’s technical side, This War of Mine emphasizes emotions. In This War of Mine, you’re not trying to kill the bad guys. You’re just trying to stay alive.

Mechanically, This War of Mine plays like a survival-horror game. Players control a randomly generated group of civilians trapped in a sieged city. Food and water are limited. During the day, you’ll protect your people from snipers and enemy soldiers; at night you’ll scavenge for supplies. Unlike Call of Duty, death has real consequences. There’s no electricity because there’s nobody to run the power plant. A build-up of corpses in the river will contaminate your water supply.

The difference between these approaches to a war game is clear from the two games’ trailers, which were both released on October 30. While Advanced Warfare sells itself as a polished, adrenaline-soaked thrill ride, This War of Mine emphasizes mood.  “For soldiers, war is about victory,” a man says, over a somber black screen. “For us, it was about getting food.” This War of Mine may not be any good (it doesn’t come out until November 15), but its emotion-first approach provides an interesting contrast to Advanced Warfare’s slavish dedication to technical details.

Of course, Call of Duty tried to engage the audience emotionally — once. The result, Modern Warfare 2’s “No Russian” level, was deemed insensitive and out of place. After all, this is Call of Duty. People die all the time, and it’s not supposed to matter.

Overview

Well, Black Ops is back with vengeance in its sequel, Black Ops II, and it would seem that Treyarch actually had some new tricks up their sleeves. Black Ops II, to my knowledge anyway, is the first in the series to bring choice and alternate story routes to your gameplay experience. It would seem the company is trying to make a break from its usual one track story and actually putting some serious effort into diversity this time around.
If you haven’t played one of the other seventeen Call of Duty games and this was a first for you, then you actually managed to step in on one of the good ones. Call of Duty, your fairly typical first person shooter is a game mashed FULL of guns and gadgets. As of the first Black Ops in the franchise there are three modes that allow you a fairly wide range of entertainment: Campaign, Multiplayer, and Zombie Mode. In each mode your goal is fairly straight forward, shoot the enemy (preferably in the head!), with a couple of variations in multiplayer mode such as “confirm you shot them by picking up their dog tags”, or “shoot them so that you can blow something else up down the road”. Almost any way you play it, there’s shooting of some kind unless you’re of the rare “knifing” persuasion. In Call of Duty, FPS also stands for “First Person Stabber”, which multiplayer actually allows some variety in for Black Ops II. Ever wanted to stab someone with a golden knife and NOT be at the top of an ancient sacrificial Aztec pyramid? Perfect, because Black Ops II has you covered! Either way, the game is great for any gun fanatic out there, old or new, and even those that want to use some future weapons that spew over nine thousand bullets a second.

Campaign
Our story begins with a short music video montage of the backstory for a character named Raul Menendez who is our villain for this short action packed hell-ride (sooooo much fire!). At a young age it would seem Menendez tried to rescue his sister from a burning building and somewhat succeeded, though his sister is in pretty bad shape. Before I go any further, here would be a good place to mention that you should be extremely careful with the “graphic content” option given to the player by Treyarch. You don’t really get a choice with introduction, but if that churns anything in your stomach, I seriously recommend turning graphic content off, because it was a rather disturbing ride in the beginning and the end of the story with it on. Anyway, getting back on track, it turns out that the warehouse Menendez and his sister were trying to escape from was actually burned down intentionally by an American for the insurance money and thus an evil mastermind is born with hatred against rich people. Hooray! No racism this game! Mostly anyway…It would seem that you do spend an inordinate amount of time killing Cubans, in the future or the past. Personally, I would never have guessed that the best equipped elite mercenary of the future would hail from Cuba, but you learn something new every day.

The story is split across three characters with missions in the near future of 2025 and the past ranging from Vietnam through the 1980s. While you’re busy dredging up backstory in the 1900s, you switch back and forth between Alex Mason, the brainwashed CIA operative from the first Black Ops, and Frank Woods, his partner; however, the majority of time is spent in the year 2025 as David Mason, son of Alex Mason hunting down the monster, Raul Menendez who always seems to be one step ahead of you. This is, of course, when you get to play with all the fun new gadgets.

Gadgets are a bit of a plot item in the newest Black Ops: winged gliders, harriers, drone support of multiple kinds, and even smaller stuff like mountainside traversal grapple partner swings (what?). I’m not even mentioning guns here or their attachments, like the introduction of the Storm PSR sniper rifle which fires through solid objects the longer you hold down the power button, and that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Another innovation this time around would be the introduction of Strike Force mode, which allows the player to take the position of a Commander on the field with a limited number of troops and a specific objective and time limit. Now, I always play the campaigns of Call of Duty on Veteran for my own amusement, but I don’t know what I was doing wrong with Strike Force. The instant my guys got on the field and somewhere near an objective they got absolutely destroyed and I lost every Strike Force mission I went in on. Maybe it was because of Veteran mode, or maybe because I’m just terrible at it, but either way it was different, difficult, and even a bit clunky for Treyarch’s release standards. You can’t just keep trying at them either. The number of troops you have is limited to the number of missions you’ve done, but the Strike Force content also disappears after a specified number of missions are completed. So, if you don’t know what you’re doing the first time around (like me!) and you lose all your troops, which just keep coming in to get mowed down unless you quit the mission early or win, then you have little to no chance of completing any of them, which really disappointed me.

Zombies
Zombie mode has evolved once again and I must say I’m a fan! Masochistic survival mode is still there, and shinier than ever, but is it really getting a story that’s more comprehensive than a three page comic book? Yes! In a loose homage to Scooby Doo and the gang, grab some machine guns and jump aboard a bus to look for clues as to why the zombie apocalypse is really happening! This new system allows some players to stay in one area while others ride a rusty bus to a totally different mini-area for alternate supplies and different “parts”. These “parts” are a piece of the new crafting aspect and allows the player(s) to MacGyver defenses and access-ways of many kinds all over the maps. Of course, the whole thing still works off of points, so make you shoot every last zombie you find to make bank! I would even say the level designers have figured out a way to make the maps more claustrophobic and scary with the addition on the brown mist that surrounds each area. Stepping into the fog gets the player an intimate experience with a creature reminiscent of the head-crabs from Half-Life and isn’t recommended unless you’re in the bus. Environments are also mutable, and even change without player intervention at times. Too many rides on the bus gets the roof torn open, staying in the initial starting zone gets the floor cracked open and spewing Hell-fire, that sort of stuff.

Multiplayer
The general format of Call of Duty multiplayer hasn’t changed too drastically, and there are plenty of new guns, new maps, new weapon attachments, and all of the other shiny bits and baubles. They’ve now included a mini Adobe Photoshop to edit your emblem to perfection, the ability to camouflage your tactical knife (always important!) and, of course, the ability to leave a calling card on your enemy. Gone are the days of Halo’s tea bags I guess. Even taunting has gotten a face lift as of 2025.
Call of Duty has, once again, flip flopped on the subject of dedicated servers, and, while this isn’t a super exciting bit about multiplayer intended to amp you up and get you ready to go with Black Ops II’s new multiplayer, it’s important to mention. Dedicated, or mod, servers allow players themselves to administer a server and to modify it as they see fit. Treyarch has decided that this breeches the integrity and security of the ranking system, which, to the rest of us means: you have to play and level up our way or it’s not fair to everyone else. I see the argument, but I personally found the most joy and innovation in the client modified servers I played on in older games in the franchise, which I will miss dearly. Furthermore, the server files are being locked away too which prevent people from renting or buying their own servers to host Black Ops II. This has been most unpopular with PC gamers looking to control a clan server. I have heard from several people who feel that Treyarch has alienated them and their preferred play style. These people are players who would have otherwise been looking forward to the newest game in the Call of Duty franchise, but now boycott it.

My own experience went something like this: upon entering my first multiplayer bout on Xbox Live, I was greeted by the whiney prepubescent complaining I am always met with when I’m on the chat system. Of course I had joined a match half way through, so going through now and muting people would simply be wasting my team’s time. Telling myself that I just have to get through this, I finished one round and then started to do my tradition of muting everyone except for my party, and, as I tried, an option popped up that made me ecstatic. “Do you want to mute all players except party members?” Dropping my jaw in amazement I quickly hit yes and was rewarded to see a bunch of tiny mute symbols next to nearly everyone’s name! It’s probably a sad reflection on me that this is the first thing I got really excited about in the game, however it’s something I know a lot of the more mature Xbox Live players hate dealing with. The rest of the games I played were pretty routine.
1. Start Round
2. Run with team around first corner
3. Get face blown off by rifle of some kind
4. Respawn
5. Run around corner
6. Repeat steps 3, 4, & 5 until death in step 3 is no longer caused by rifle, but by air strike and promptly remove step 5 from rotation until end of game.
I can tell you though, from looking at the stats of three of the twenty some odd people on the map, that it IS possible to have fun and do well. How much time and effort you want to put in to getting that good and having fun is up to you though.  Plus, this stuff’s getting easier with the addition of my favorite attachment, the “target finder” that puts a giant red diamond around your enemy when you look down your scope.