Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 review: More Destiny than Black Ops

Call of Duty has drifted pretty far from its original roots as a military shooter set in historical settings, even though it occasionally tries to nod back to that. It turned into a Halloween-style shooting game where the main focus is on having a cool costume and flashy accessories. It has become a vanity fair of shooters with skillfully constructed mechanics designed to regularly reward us with unlockable prizes and the promise of more loot. Only beneath this facade, there's actually some pretty solid gunplay, movement, and engaging, dynamic gameplay.

If someone became a fan of the brand during those phases or totally embraced the changes, they'll probably have a good time with the new stuff—after all, it's basically more of the same. We've gotten used to the fact that the series can really switch up its setting and vibe – from the real battlefields of World War II, to modern times, and even futuristic space conflicts.

I must admit that even though I've been with the Call of Duty series since its beginnings in 2003, nothing prepared me for what I saw in the latest Black Ops 7. While the zombie mode is still true to itself, being the classic COD-style zombie, the campaign has veered heavily towards Destiny from Bungie, and the multiplayer matchmaking system has been turned upside down. Overall, I felt like I was playing a 100 GB AAA mobile game, rather than another installment of Call of Duty. And this is a game that not only looks worse than Battlefield 6, but in some ways, it's even a step down from the "old" Modern Warfare from 2019.

Absurd campaign

No matter what, this year's Call of Duty is definitely going to be remembered mostly for its story campaign. The Black Ops series used to give us some of the best stories and coolest characters, but this time it's the complete opposite. Moreover, it's worse than the campaign pieced together from the canceled DLC of Modern Warfare 3, or the poorly received one from Black Ops III. It's tough to find any positives in this mode, starting with the painfully cliché storyline and poorly written dialogue.

In a nutshell, the big, bad corporation, The Guild, led by a young girl, is shaking the world, overthrowing governments and starting conflicts. All the armies and leaders are down, but somehow our JSOC superhero squad, with just four people, can take down legions of corporate soldiers and robots loaded with futuristic tech. Maybe it's because they inhaled some toxic biological weapon at the start, causing hallucinations, and half the battles they fought were just in their heads. Strangely, everyone has the same hallucinations at the same time, allowing them to always fight in a group of four. Thanks to this, they were able to add battles with spiders, mosquitoes, flowers, and a few big bosses to the game.

In every case, regardless of type and size, the enemies are typical bullet sponges. This strange mix also includes a few well-known hero names from previous Black Ops installments—probably to ensure it remains recognizable as part of the Call of Duty series, rather than as a completely different game. However, this doesn't help. There's no nostalgia or emotion here because the story and narration are weak, and the characters are bland. It doesn't help that some missions are just a spot on an open map from another mode, where you have to go and shoot for a bit. Using a vehicle or a wingsuit doesn't really help, because the area is so huge that it's even more lacking in detail than the boring, sterile locations in the corridor missions.

And for dessert, there are some technical surprises in the campaign, like a kind of mandatory co-op mode. You can technically play solo if you really want to, but you won't have any bots filling in for the rest of the team. Furthermore, all the cutscenes and dialogues assume that all four characters are hanging out together. On top of that, the campaign is always online, even if you're playing solo, which means you can't pause, save, or take a quick break for tea. If you're inactive for a bit, you'll get kicked off the server and have to start the mission all over again. I've experienced such forced repeats several times.

Call of Destiny

The annual release cycle seems to have once again resulted in a hastily put-together mess, as we've received a bizarre, chaotic creation with more references to Bungie's Destiny than Black Ops. We've got a similar setup for mission objectives where we explore a shared open area and face off against bullet-sponge enemies. There's the protective Ward of Dawn bubble of the Titan class, and the meme-worthy boss with the face of Michael Rooker is a much less refined fight with Oryx from Destiny.

If someone feels like they haven't had enough fun with the campaign, the story's finale doesn't really wrap things up. It unlocks an additional mode called Endgame, which is essentially a PvE extraction shooter on a large, open map of Avalon – empty, dead, sterile, devoid of details and character. When you run into other player teams, you can keep shooting at enemies who soak up bullets, grab the loot, and race to the extraction point. Nothing we haven't seen before in Warzone mode, and equally lacking in atmosphere and character as the main missions.

So, does the campaign have any upsides? There's a moment when we need to act like the character from a classic arcade game. That's a really cool easter egg, cleverly woven into the main gameplay, but it only lasts a few seconds. Another advantage is the ability to level up characters and weapons while playing through the campaign, which immediately unlocks various accessories for other modes as well. And that's basically it. Honestly, it might've been a better move this year to just skip the campaign.

Even faster multiplayer and a nod to fans of the series

Let's just forget about the campaign and focus on what actually turned out well—the multiplayer mode. You can pick from sixteen new maps for quick 6v6 matches, including three remakes of classics from Black Ops 2 and two larger areas taken from the Avalon map for the 20v20 Skirmish mode. Moreover, there are over twenty different types of weapons, tons of accessories to unlock, score-streaks, perks, loads of camo options for your guns, and a new mode called Overload. In this mode, you have to grab an item called the Overload Device and get it to a specific area.

In multiplayer, some things haven't changed, so no matter how many players there are, it's still a super fast-paced game that needs lightning-quick reflexes and spot-on aim in a split second. Besides the Omnimovement, which includes sprinting in every direction and sliding, we now also have wall-running. Visually, the pace is a bit faster and doesn't slow down even in Skimirsh on bigger maps, thanks to the use of wingsuits, vehicles, and grappling hooks.

There are also changes. The most important and perhaps controversial one is the significant reduction of SBMM, that is the matchmaking based on players' skills. This is related to moving to subsequent matches in the same lobby, like in the good old days, because now ping has become much more important than results. When you encounter a well-coordinated team, you can stick together for a longer time without fear that the game will separate you. On the other hand, SBMM always worked decidedly in favor of weaker, beginner players, who will now have to face much more experienced opponents.

It cannot be denied that in this installment, the developers have somewhat catered to veterans and the most loyal fans of the series. Success in matches depends even more on speed, reflexes, skill, knowledge of maps, and lines of sight. Once you get into this rhythm of gameplay, get used to it, and adapt to slightly differently functioning aim-assist, you can have some fun, especially since new unlocks come quickly. The most persistent players will be tempted by the weapon prestige system, which returns after many years. However, I have the impression that this time, the fun in multiplayer is much less universal and may not attract new or more casual players for long.

I miss Nicki Minaj

A futuristic setting is a very convenient option. It allows the developers full artistic freedom, but it's also a trap because the final result can turn out to be generic, bland, and indistinguishable from dozens of other productions in the same vein. And that's exactly what happened with Black Ops 7. Despite spending the last week with the game, I don't remember the shape of any weapon or any name because everything looks bland and similar.

The same goes for the operators taken from the bland storyline - choosing them really made me miss Nicki Minaj. As for the maps, although they are quite well-designed in terms of shooting mechanics, they are a standard set of clichéd, detail-lacking dioramas - you get docks, a wealthy mansion, a forest residence, a futuristic power plant, etc. – nothing that encourages you to linger, admire, or explore. Hence my earlier comparison to a AAA mobile game – there's plenty to play with, but aside from popping rewards and unlocks, nothing sticks in memory, nothing impresses, everything has been seen dozens of times before.

Zombies are still cool

The only thing that remains without controversy, set in a climatic location with operators matching the action, is the Call of Duty and Treyarch trademark - the Zombie mode. In it, we find ourselves on one of the largest maps in the history of this mode – Ashes of the Damned – although, of course, the entire map is only revealed by systematically winning rounds and unlocking new areas. There are various gameplay options to choose from: searching for clues on your own, displaying hints, to increased difficulty levels or focusing solely on survival. A big plus here is the option to save your solo progress. The much more entertaining Dead Ops Arcade 4 mode also returns, both with in FPP and in a crazy top-down view with twin-stick controls. The main drawback of CoD: Zombie, or rather its characteristic, is one and always the same: it's worth having a coordinated team of friends to play with, as experiences with randomly matched companions can vary. Finding competent teammates who won't leave you hanging halfway through the game is a matter of great luck.

Was there a lack of time? Creativity?

Of course, many of the complaints I mentioned above are just subjective matters of taste, and for some players, such futuristic, sterile atmosphere might hit the mark. However, it's hard to overlook the fact that the game sounds significantly worse than, say, Modern Warfare from 2019, and in some aspects, it also looks worse. For example, the gunshot sounds in MW are much more resonant and richer - you can clearly hear the distinct clinking of falling bullet cases. It's similar with the movement of other characters on the map - not only do they look better in Modern Warfare, but all movement and reloading animations are smoother and more natural. In Black Ops 7, it's as if every other frame was deliberately removed, which likely also contributes to the impression of a faster pace.

The additional misfortune for the new Call of Duty is this year's release of Battlefield 6. Despite the slightly different gameplay formula of both games, they are both well-established, hailed for over two decades as benchmark for AAA online FPS. In terms of spectacle, what happens on the screen gives the impression that both games are separated by an entire console generation, not just a month. But there's no need to look at the competition. Both Black Ops 6 and Cold War had better ideas for the campaign, better-chosen innovations in mechanics, a more sensible approach to hallucinations, and undoubtedly more charismatic characters. Multiplayer maps referencing real places and objects also had much more character.

Call of Duty once dabbled in heavily futuristic themes, and none of those installments are listed among the top favorites. The series had to save itself with a reboot of the Modern Warfare franchise and a return to grounded, contemporary themes. Seeing how Battlefield had to make a similar retreat after the poorly received BF 2042 that used similar settings, I'm surprised that Activision approved such a seemingly least anticipated return to the future. And since they took such a risk, it could have been done more creatively instead of rehashing the same old patterns and styles. I have no doubt that some fans of fast-paced multiplayer in Call of Duty will be somewhat more satisfied and can confidently add 1.5-2 points to their score. However, for me this year's release is a pass. I'd rather return to multiplayer in Modern Warfare 2019 or replay the campaigns featuring Russell Adler.