A fun Call of Duty, but it didn't live up to its great prequels.
Image credit: Call of Duty: Black Ops III header art/image.
Source: PortForward.com
Summary
- Name of the game: Call of Duty: Black Ops III
- Launch date: November 6, 2015
- Developer: Treyarch
- Publisher: Activision
- Platforms: PS4, PS3, Xbox One, Xbox 360, PC
- Genre: First Person Shooter (FPS)
- Context: A dystopian future in 2065, where cybernetic advances have transformed warfare and humanity faces political, technological and moral conflicts.
Campaign
I have played the campaign again 9 years later to write this. I remembered the campaign of this game being terrible and today I insist that it was worse than I remembered. The campaign of Black Ops 3 is in a world even more futuristic than its predecessor, which again is exaggerated and goes down another line that is not aligned with what the saga is.
The game starts off on a mission that doesn't end up going very well and your character gets blown to bits by a robot; I think this was the most memorable part of the story, and it was at the beginning. Now we belong to a group of modified soldiers with implants that connect them to a neural system that affects their entire mind. So they see reality differently, their memories are not exactly the same and, in short, they are no longer the same in a certain way.
The plot is more focused on the psychological part and they put a lot more science fiction, which makes everything more confusing and boring. The game tries to be deeper philosophically speaking, but it does it so badly that it is confusing, with bad rhythm, boring, slow and even tedious.
The characters are forgettable; even your character in subtitles appears with the name “Player”, which is zero in identity. It was even predictable and at the end you don't really understand what's going on, partly because during the plot you're disinterested and it's hard to pay attention to it. The main villain is bad: an AI, I have nothing more to say.
Why is it confusing and so badly paced? A Call of Duty saga where everything happens inside the mind of our protagonist. The team that installs the DNI on you turns out to be working with an AI called Corvus, which, as expected, starts to become conscious and begins to affect the minds of those who have the DNI. This AI manipulates everything you see, making you believe that your companions die, memories of you are mixed with others, scenarios that change, random enemies that look like holograms... a whole mess.
Our character is just a container for the AI, he is nobody and has no name. The AI seeks to connect the minds of people to seek peace and no suffering. At the end of the campaign it is a mental battle against the AI; everything is fake and it is up to the player's interpretation what ends up happening.
Compared to the magnificent campaigns of Black Ops 1 and 2, this game's campaign was dire. It doesn't feel like a Call of Duty; they try to innovate and it goes wrong. The plot is not interesting, but add to that the bad rhythm, bad characters, weak action moments and that everything you do is in your mind, and it becomes one of the worst campaigns in the history of the Call of Duty saga, but not the worst.
Multiplayer
I think this is the most remarkable thing about the game, but I would like to comment that it is a bit overrated: in some aspects it is very good and in others not. The best thing is that it keeps the same essence of Black Ops 2, which was brutal; it has many similar elements and makes it a very entertaining multiplayer. Combat is fast and fluid, with a more elaborate mobility than in Advanced Warfare. Now you can run up walls, double jump and slide.
The good:
The best thing about the multiplayer was its essence of the Black Ops saga. The launch maps were good, being the most outstanding for me: Hunted, Combine, Fringe and Evac, among others.
It had a good balance of weapons, although not as much as its predecessor, but enough to have different builds. They kept the classic modes and added a few more that, honestly, did not capture my attention, since I am more dedicated to the usual modes. It was a very replayable mode to which I invested, at the time, about 60 hours.
The regular:
For me, their point streaks system... it's good to have the possibility to get more streaks to feel like the most powerful player during the game, and in this game their system contributes to make it easier to get them. The problem is when it's too easy for the 12 players.
I remember having had games of domination where it was simply crazy the amount of streaks they sent: you could not spawn because you already had some RAPS on you, all using UAV, counter UAV, helicopters ... It was too much, and it is one of the COD where people got out of it the most. When the whole team had streaks, it was impossible to even move, and add to that the specialist skills and it was chaos.
The bad:
- The learning curve was not so easy. More streaks were added, more weapons, more customization, specialists, jumping mechanics, among other things that made adapting not so fast.
- In this game it was very common to lose connection with the host or for everyone to freeze. I understand that it happens sometimes, but I remember it was normal to lose connection.
- The specialists, in my opinion, a completely unnecessary element: remove them and the game works fine. The use of their abilities, added to all the additional mechanics and the ease of getting streaks, added more elements to distract or finish off enemies. I found it tiring, unnecessary and overdone. Many times it happened that even people forgot to use those skills, not because they were bad, but because they were unnecessary for the experience.
- What I call the 3 area attack: ground attack, air attack and now water attack. Yes, in Black Ops 3 multiplayer you not only had to worry about someone attacking you from the front, back or sides, but also from above due to the mega jumps that can be made. And now there are maps with parts where you can submerge, so add attacks from below, underwater, where you can't even see your enemy. This for me was the worst thing about the multiplayer, causing unfair deaths. It's a first person camera and you are expected to watch your front, sides, back, feet and if someone flies over your head... there are deaths impossible to avoid.
- The multiplayer was very entertaining in its time; it had that essence that made you come back to play, but not so much because of its innovation, but because it kept that essence of the first Black Ops. For some reason it was addictive, but it had a lot of elements to improve and it could become overwhelming. Yes, I think it's a good multiplayer, but it's not the marvel that many count it as.
Zombies
At the time, when I played it out of the box, I wasn't a big fan of the zombies mode; that's been changed by the recent CODs, so I can't say much about this mode, although I did play it a bit.
The only starting map is Shadows of Evil, which for many was a success, although I must say that only one map does leave a lot to be desired; at least 2 or 3 would be ideal. What I think made this map so special is everything that a single map offered: the power to transform into a beast that gave special abilities, the rituals, the Pack-a-Punch that does not open in the same way as in the others, it is a whole process, progression mechanics that encourage you to play more, objects like Shields, Widow's Wine, the Eggs, portals to move around Morg City and a fumigator to open cocoons that give weapons or benefits.
The map is dense and full of options, although confusing for my taste. Ideal for players looking for an experience of completing objectives and challenges in one game. The bosses are good, including the Margwa, Parasites and Meatballs.
The easter egg is heavy, it takes too much coordination and the 4 players must be synchronized. Better to do it with friends; doing it with random people was almost impossible. In summary, despite being only one map, its content was very good and innovative. According to my experience (from the little I played), it left a better impression than the zombies in BO2, for example.
Graphics and visual design
For a 2015 game, it's pretty good. COD is always used to provide a good visual experience with good graphics. Although Treyarch I feel that it does not focus so much on quality but more on gameplay, but it delivers quite well, nothing to say.
Its style is a futuristic realism, although it adds elements already a little more advanced for the year in which the events are supposed to happen.
Weapon designs are good and according to the game, maybe some are not so flashy, but overall they are fine. The multiplayer maps are good, maybe Shadows of Evil is a bit confusing.
It seems to me that the design of the campaign scenarios, maps, enemies and the world is fine. Although I'm not a fan of the futuristic theme in CODs, here it reaches the limit. More futuristic than this completely ruins the concept, even though this game is already a bit out of line with the saga.
Sound and music
The soundtrack combines electronic and atmospheric music, in keeping with the futuristic tone. Compared to its previous games, its music is far below players' expectations. It's not bad, but a similar level to BO1 and BO2 was expected, and it doesn't achieve it.
The sound effects are very well achieved; the weapons still sound with good quality, the spells with good and very memorable effects. Where the sound stands out the most in this game is in the multiplayer without a doubt; to appreciate the effects more it is advisable to play a few games.
The voice acting... the actors try, but the script, plot and characters definitely don't help at all. Sadly, I can't say the voice acting is anything to remember, but I don't think it's the fault of the actors: just none of them stand out.
Difficulty and accessibility
The campaign has 5 modes; they added the realistic mode in which you are practically dead in one shot, it is a good challenge. The campaign can be tricky in parts where there are robots; if you face humans they are a breeze regardless of their difficulty. The AI of the soldiers and the AI of the robots feels different: the human AI is clumsier and the robots feel like they have aimbot.
Multiplayer can take a while to master with the new mechanics and specialists. I found the zombies to be the hardest part of the game, being a bit more confusing and with less margin for error; I feel like I died faster than in other games. It varies by mode. In campaign, “Veteran” offers a real challenge. In Zombies, the curve can be demanding for beginners. As for accessibility options, I've seen basic options, but by your 2015 standard it's nice that it includes subtitles, audio settings, controls and sensitivity.
Additional content
The campaign can take about 8 to 10 hours, which is fine for all that the multiplayer and zombies offer. Its replayability is very high, minus the campaign. For many, the zombies were the best thing about this game; for others, the multiplayer; for me a combination of both. What we all agree is that the campaign is the worst.
In case you did not remember, the campaign has a free mode that few tried. Like all good Black Ops, it offers multiplayer and zombie map expansions, where the zombie ones are more recommended, since Shadows of Evil, being only an initial one, can be tiring after mastering it.
Technical Aspects
The PS4 and Xbox One version was very solid, with stable FPS most of the time and good loading times at the time, except in multiplayer. The loading screens in multiplayer are a nightmare, where it was normal for the image to freeze and you didn't even know if it was loading or just stuck. It continued with this same problem of BO1 and BO2; it would be expected that a third installment would correct this, but in this game it didn't happen.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 version was pitiful: a poor version, worse performance and the worst thing is that it didn't include the campaign. Yes, I know, they didn't miss something good either, but you can't release 2 versions and say “in this one I give you this and in the other one I don't”. This to me was unacceptable for Activision to do, although I'm not surprised.
The game has a few minor bugs and glitches; its biggest problem was connectivity only. The rest I found it to be a solid game, providing excellent optimization on PS4 and Xbox One. The PS3 and Xbox 360 version is one to forget.
Value for money
Its launch price was 60 USD, which at the time was justified by its predecessors and reputation. Of course, the old gen version was not nearly worth paying that amount.
I had bought it at full price at the time because of the hype, but I think for what it offers, $40 was okay, because yes I have to devalue it for the campaign, but the rest made you have a good time.
Trophies / Achievements
- Platinum obtained: No
- Percentage of trophies obtained: 60% excluding DLC.
- Estimated time: 40-60 hours or more depending on zombie skill.
- Platinum difficulty: 7 out of 10. It's difficult, mostly because of the zombie trophies. Partly realistic campaign mode, but the zombies are more complicated.
Conclusion
Black Ops 3 is a game that, despite its huge flaws, manages to hold its own thanks to two very clear pillars: its multiplayer and its zombie mode. The campaign, even playing it years later, confirms to be one of the weakest points of the whole saga: confusing, exaggerated, uninspired and totally disconnected from what made Black Ops 1 and 2 great. It is an attempt to be “deep” something that ends up being a narrative chaos where nothing engages and the characters contribute absolutely nothing.
Overall, Black Ops 3 is a game that shines where we already knew Treyarch shines, but also fails where we didn't expect it to. It's not a bad COD, but not one that represents the quality the series once had. For multiplayer and zombie fans it delivers just fine; for those looking for a good campaign, it's simply not the place. I feel it is a much loved COD, but one that has many problems and falls far short of its previous games.
My final rating for Call of Duty Black Ops III is:
3.4 / 5.0
