Saturday, July 9, 2016

Game Review--Call Of Duty Black Ops: Declassified (PS Vita)

This game straight up sucks.  I'll state this immediately.  Critics excoriated it without mercy, and I wish I had heeded their warnings before purchasing this game.  It represents one of the very worst first person shooters ever to grace the PS Vita and I hope its creators never release such a horrifying and rushed game to any platform ever again.


Production Values

The quality and time commitment invested in this game was scarce.  While the graphics exceed mediocrity but fail to display the actual power of the PS Vita, almost everything else about the design screams out that the creators did not even attempt to craft a game that meets the standards upheld by all others.  It all seems very rushed.


Gameplay

So the campaign usually isn't the greatest aspect of a Call of Duty game.  Most people assume this before buying.  But this is the single most poorly-constructed, thoughtlessly-designed, pathetic, subpar, unacceptable, disgustingly-short campaign I have ever played in my life.  The entire campaign has a total length of about an hour or less, and it only exceeds an hour if you find yourself constantly dying from the difficulty.  Why does dying extend the time so much?  Because every time you die you must restart the ENTIRE level, including the mandatory cinematic introductions before each one that you can't skip.  This frustrates on so many levels that I'm not sure which is more difficult, trying to beat this game on the lowest difficulty setting or trying to explain all the grievous flaws without under-emphasizing how atrocious they truly are.

In addition to the pitiful campaign, a quick time trial mode and a "Hostiles" mode (like survival mode in other Call of Duty games) try to extend the time you spend playing.  Hostiles offers a passable diversion from the awful campaign, but good luck attaining the "Hostile Work Environment" trophy.  Speaking of trophies, not only are some of the achievements almost impossible to complete--like beating a certain level without receiving ANY damage or killing eight enemies with only four freaking bullets--but you must often beat the full level to even unlock them.  So what happens if you die and must return to the beginning of the whole level because no checkpoints exist?  You become deeply frustrated and start wondering how the game designers responsible for this senseless product ever obtained jobs in the industry.

One notable missing feature I must comment on is the absence of any zombie mode.  Sure, hostiles mode may equate another survival mode that replaces it, but zombie mode eclipses hostiles in every way.  What game in the Black Ops series ever skipped zombie mode?  Even the 2010 DS version of Black Ops on vastly underpowered hardware included it!


Story

This section is almost unnecessary in this review because the game possesses almost no "story" whatsoever, instead opting to bring the player through ten brief five minute levels scattered about the Black Ops timeline.  If there was any connection between the levels, I missed it.  Instead of at least attempting to provide a traditional Call of Duty campaign, the game's brevity and incoherent story butcher what could have become a highly satisfying handheld entry in the behemoth first person shooter franchise.  The story makes almost no sense and doesn't offer the player time to even understand the ramifications of what short levels do exist.


Intellectual Content

There is little to no legitimate intellectual content in this game at all.  Obviously, if the developers shirked their duties and couldn't even master basic gameplay elements like checkpoints and an actual story there is no way that they succeeded in creating any intellectual depth.  Those who come to this game seeking a deep plot or a meaningful gaming experience will find themselves disappointed.


Conclusion

Allow me to list a sample of the game's major disappointments, some of which I did not cover above:
1. Complete absence of any checkpoints in any level
2. Full campaign completion time of an hour or less
3. Gameplay that borders on arcade-style
4. Near-impossible trophies
5. Levels must usually be beaten entirely for trophies to unlock
6. Sometimes too difficult on the easiest setting
7. No zombie mode
8. Pitiful and incoherent "story"
9. Terrible AI
10. Hit or miss controls that either work well or fail completely

I allowed this game to have a chance because it is the only handheld Call of Duty released in the past four years.  However, I should have listened to the critics in their practically universal abhorrence of this abomination trying to masquerade as art.  The desire to make games like this should never even enter into the minds of developers.


Content
1. Violence:  As a Call of Duty game, many gunfights and melee kills are incorporated into gameplay, though true graphic violence and actual brutality are nowhere to be found.  Blood scarcely emerges from wounds.
2. Profanity:  The profanity in this game is very strong and consistently used throughout almost the entire campaign.  Some characters drop F-bombs with almost amusing frequency, as if trying to sound cool just by including it in their vocabulary.

4 comments:

  1. What games pass the Cooper standard of quality? What makes a game objectively good, in your eyes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What makes a game objectively good in your eyes?"

    Is this trying to subjectify my response as to what makes a game objectively good? If I were to compare two excellent games, I wouldn't know entirely what makes one better than another. But that does not mean I can't know at least in part when dealing with other games. For instance, some game graphics are objectively better than others. Pixel clarity, frames per second, and smoothness in the visuals is not a matter of opinion; a game possesses good graphics or it doesn't. Voice acting is either good and appropriate for the setting or it isn't. Game elements are either realistic or not. A game either has a great range of extended content to prolong play past beating the single player campaign or it doesn't. Things like this help determine if a game is at least passable with regards to a particular detail.

    But the moment people acknowledge that a game like Doom (2016) has better graphics than an Atari game or the moment they realize a game like The Last of Us is objectively more emotionally-moving than Black Ops 3, they are acknowledging a spectrum. We might not know every detail about the spectrum but we can recognize certain aspects as being superior to those of other games.

    Also, saying one prefers a mindless game to a well-crafted one just means one prefers it. It doesn't do anything to disprove the objectivity of what I've been talking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I repeat: What games pass the Cooper standard of quality?

      A.K.A. what games do you like ;)

      Delete
  3. If you mean what types of games I enjoy, that ranges from slower exploration-based adventures like Metroid Prime or Zelda to action behemoths like God of War or Doom. I would love to play the new Tomb Raider, the Uncharted series, some of the Assassin's Creed games, and maybe some Resident Evil entries. But in the past I have played everything from Mario to Call of Duty. I'm not too selective about any genre but instead like deep stories and addictive gameplay with lots of achievements and replay value.

    Were you looking for an answer like that or did you want to know what specific criterion I think make a game objectively good? Forgive any misunderstanding! :)

    ReplyDelete