Ask The Reviewer: Call of Duty Black Ops 3

The reviews are in. GameSpot has given Call of Duty Black Ops 3 a 7/10 saying:

"Black Ops III's narrative doesn't support the campaign in any meaningful way. It tells an incomprehensible story about AI ascendancy and the moral grays of a hyper-connected future, raising intriguing questions but never bothering to answer them. At the end of it all, after hours of soulless shooting and unremarkable storytelling, Black Ops III delivered its nebulous twist, and I didn't dwell on it. In its undead modes, and the first 10 hours of multiplayer, it excels. But in its campaign, it merely crawls forward. Black Ops III doesn't offer anything remarkable to the series, but does just enough to maintain the Call of Duty status quo." -Mike Mahardy [Full review]

The Good:

• Multiplayer specialists offer initial novelty
• Zombies is a weird, rewarding cooperative experience
• Varied, well designed multiplayer maps

The Bad:

• Boring, incomprehensible campaign
• Co-op is more of a slog than single-player
• Little multiplayer variety after 10 hours

We're sure you have tons of questions for Mike about his review, so here's your chance to ask your questions! As always remember GameSpot's Golden Rule and be sure to follow our Community Code of Conduct.

Now, I'm sure the game has plenty to discuss about like it's modes, it's gameplay, story, multiplayer and it's overall mechanisms (if they're balanced, fair, and well implemented), the value of the overall product....

...but let us cut to the chase here: This would totally be a 9/10 with Fish AI 2.0, right?

"boring, incomprehensible campaign"

Makes me wonder why they bother with those any more for games that are first and for most online multiplayer?

Hi,

So I am curious, are you able to set up private games on Call of Duty Black Ops 3 multiplayer? The second part to this question if the answer is yes, can you make any mutators to the modes to mix things up?

I ask this question because a few friends and I have been playing Halo 5 custom games where we set physics/weapons changes to spice things up. For example, in one game type, we set the gravity to 0%, rocket launchers, and active camo for all. This lead to us just floating around trying to find each other without being seen ourselves and some funny moments of everybody firing at each other when one person gets found. Good times. I hope something similar can be done in Black Ops, or even just private games.

Thank you.

More of a general question: In your review, you highlight the campaign and its flaws. Do you think that reviews in general, at GS and at other outlets, are putting more weight than ever on the quality of narrative in games and, if so, what do you think accounts for that shift?

I do not mean to imply harshness, but I am curious about something.

I wonder if the story is incomprehensible if he, in the sentence he calls it that, describes details of the story. Then, he asserts, for a point, that the story is inconclusive, showing an understanding of it. This is contradictory.

While I have not played this game, this is the information that I have of the review. Reviews can act as a useful guide for prospective buyers of certain games and I think that worth considering is a different approach when reviewing games if something is not understood from a certain perspective and especially if it is comprehensible in some respects.

Are there any mid-long ranged encounters in the multiplayer? It seems to me that since World at War, most maps in CoD games are set up for running-and-gunning with most firefights happening at close range.

Is there a use for longer-range weaponry like Snipers/DMRs/slower firing assault rifles?

I don't get the little multiplayer variety after 10 hours thing?? COD online has always been play unlock guns, secondaries, perks, or whatever, reach highest level then prestige and start over maybe getting an permanent unlock for what ever you choose. Basically it's never had variety so how is this one any different and perceived as a negative?

@Desmonic: Those fish caught us all by surprise. You. Me. Everyone.

@superflyzero: I think they're still good to have, as a lot of people still want campaign, story driven experiences. Definitely not the main concern, but I think some people would be mad if they removed them entirely.

@Garfield360UK: You can! And there are also a pretty good variety of ways to alter the game. A few examples:

You can alter the points per kill, headshot bonus points, limited respawns, scorestreak rules, friendly fire, health %, and whether you have a specialist draft, which allows people to vote off certain specialist characters that your friend might be obscenely good with.

These are just a few options. So if you're looking for custom games you're able to mold to fit your group's preferences, I think Black Ops III should satisfy you.

@olddadgamer: Good question!

I think narrative is, and will continue to be, important in games. I think we're getting a to a point where more developers are figuring out how to tell interesting stories that only games have the ability to tell.

So although Call of Duty isn't inherently single-player focused, I think a good campaign, with a strong story, would help it infinitely. For games in general, there are more and more good stories being told. In comparison, the ones that still tell boring or forced stories fall by the wayside. I actually tend to place gameplay and world-building over story, but like I said: a good story can really elevate a game past its peers.

@BranKetra: That's a very good point, and I'm glad you called that out!

So I have to disagree: I think a story can raise questions, not answer them, and still be incomprehensible. If it's pulling me in the right direction, and raising the questions in a manner that 's creating an engaging experience, then that works. But if it raises obvious questions, devotes three hours to convoluted, futuristic paranoia, and then never circles back to what was interesting in the first place, then that's incomprehensible. So just because I understand the questions, and the fact that it never circles back to them in any impactful way, doesn't mean I completely get what they're going for.

On the other hand, you can tell a very convoluted, confusing story to lead the player in one direction, while setting up something completely different. The first Black Ops, for example, did a great job of that. I didn't get what the JFK historical aspects, the Cold War brainwashing, and Reznov's monologues were all about. By the time it made sense, I was as confused as Treyarch wanted me to be. Black Ops 3 never capitalizes because it's confusing in a way that I didn't really get. It didn't use the confusion in any useful way.

@with_teeth26: So there are a few long range maps in BO3, which are actually some of my favorite. There's one called Infection that has a really good blend of mid, close, and long range encounters.

That being said, the majority are built to encourage movement, especially considering you have more maneuvers this time around: wall runs, ground slides, and clambering, to be specific. It all feels fluid, and I wasn't camping nearly as much as I used to (I know, I camp, I suck, you can hate me). All in all, if you're looking for measured, long range gameplay, BO3 might not be your best bet.

@xxyetixx: I've actually had this problem with the last few Call of Duty games. But, I didn't review them, so the person who wrote them will have an entirely different opinion.

I think the last game to really nail the constant progression was Modern Warfare 2. The number of weapon specific challenges, and the way they unlocked without having to spend tokens on them, always made unlocks feel meaningful. I like that the Black Ops games let you spend points on what you really want to use, but I feel as if it wasn't actually changing the way I played. With Modern Warfare 2, I was constantly adapting to the new machine gun, shotgun, handgun or launcher I just acquired.

So although the Specialists are definitely a novel idea for BO3, it soon felt like the generic COD experience when they weren't unlocking often. That doesn't mean it's bad, but the last few CODs really haven't encouraged me to prestige like Modern Warfare 2 did, with its rewarding unlocks, challenges, and dizzying array of options. That was also the first time I experienced that kind of progression, so it was both novel and, in my opinion, well designed.

I think consumers would be better served to have more options, like just a SP edition for less, or just a MP edition for less, and a combination of both like what we have now. That way everyone could get what they want out of these games, and if it's later decided that one version isn't selling well, the developers would know that people didn't like it, so no need to bother with something similar in the future.

Seems like forcing that stuff in to a one-size-fits-all package is just a money grab.

thats pretty much what I feared/expected. Just nostalgic for the days of WW II CoD multiplayer where 'rifle only' servers were a thing and maps were designed to support 32 players I guess.

Goes to show how the target audience of the series has shifted since the good ol' days.

@mmahardy: I can see that.

While I too use and like the permanent unlocks it takes away the risk of prestiging and doing it all over. I'm pretty basic when it comes to COD, after my 4th time prestiging I had everything I wanted ready to go so it really was pointless to prestige.

How is the movement compared to other shooters this gen? Personally I think Titanfall and Halo 5 nailed making you feel really fast but also giving you tons of control. On the other hand, AW was faster than previous CoD games but I thought the new abilities still felt stiff and not very fluid.

@mmahardy:

Ok, that sounds really cool. I may have to give this a look.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, and for going into the depth you are to answer all our questions.

@mmahardy: Knew it! Fish AI is the feature of the gen!

I have had problem with this. Review scores on gamespot and other outlets has mislead me in purchasing games. I have come to a realization that reviewers nowadays aren't what they used to be. They are putting more and more weight on the story/campaign and not as much as they actually should on the replayability/gameplay/fun factor of a game.

This is why Uncharted gets 9+ all the time. You are going to tell me Uncharted gameplay is different and innovative everytime? Youre going to tell me the gameplay doesnt get boring after ducking shooting for 10 hours? They clearly care more about the story line and this isn't how it should be.

Halo 5's score got butchered too because of the campaign. I am loving that games multiplayer. I will play that game more than any other single player games I own ill tell you that.

If gamespot things COD gets boring after 10 hours, do they honestly think single player games with 8 hour campaign will last longer than 10 hours?

THERE IS NO STANDARD HERE.

@mmahardy: To respond, my view is that calling a story that does not answer questions incomprehensible is like calling introverts shy if responses are not given to questions or, a more tangible analogy, calling the Blade Runner film incomprehensible because it forgoes answering whether Deckard is a replicant. The paranoia you describe is something that is part of bioethical debates, today. Some say that transhumanism, what the game is about, based on the trailer, is a slippery slope that can lead to the dissemination of society's negative possibilities. That may not be interesting to other players, but I think that discussing the merits and faults of that kind of philosophical thought is fascinating.

I have not played it at this point, so I am basing the following on what you are saying. I suppose that they did not adequately elaborate their message in the story. That does not mean it should be simple; people like complex stories as well as simple ones. However, if they do not successfully explain their message to their audience then they probably could have done better.

@BranKetra: Blade Runner is another great example! I also appreciate the thought you put into the comparison.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that something can be incomprehensible in an overarching fashion, even if it does bring up a few clear questions. And the questions Black Ops III raises were some of the more promising parts of its story to me, so I was disappointed to find they didn't go too in-depth past the point of just asking the questions. They didn't really explore the possibilities in any meaningful way.

And as for the rest, it's just convoluted and fragmented in a way I didn't like. I'd definitely love to hear your thoughts once you play it!

@legaldruggie: I appreciate your insight!

To respond, I'd point you toward my Uncharted: Nathan Drake Collection review, where I actually said the gameplay got in the way of the first game, and later games, being fun overall. (I gave the collection an 8)

Of course, it's up to the individual reviewer how much they think a story or campaign impact the overall experience. So, finding a reviewer who has the same approach to enjoying games as you would be helpful. But it's all opinion! I just happen to value narrative. Definitely not as much as gameplay. But if the narrative gets in the way of me having fun with the game (see my recent Volume review), then I think it's a problem.

Mike - did you get any chance to use the split screen functionality? One of the big features of the game is that it supports a variety of split-screen modes, and unfortunately I don't see any mention of it in your review.

Agreed. A lot of shooters are like that nowadays, even in single player campaigns. I wish there were more firefights in the 200-400 yard range. It seems like most firefights take place within 50 yards, handgun and shotgun range. For instance, in Black Ops 2, there is little reason to have a sniper rifle unless you're some quick scoping douche. I hate getting killed by people that run around with freaking sniper rifles and then call people who properly use them as "campers" and "hardscopers".

A stream

http://www.twitch.tv/therace

@mmahardy: I think I understand what you are asserting. Black Ops III asks questions that promote thought within the player, but the narrative does not go beyond the boundaries set by the theme of paranoia, so the ideas of the game are unclear.

While it had imperfections, I like that the Mass Effect 3 trilogy gave a somewhat reasonable conclusion to the reaper threat, something that many think Shepard is paranoid about in the games. The ideas in Black Ops III are futuristic, but more like reality than that of Mass Effect, so the gravitas of the plot is more relatable than the latter. I think that video gaming is a medium that can express profound ideas and I hope that a game with a similar premise like the soon to release, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, shall discuss these ideas in a good way.

@KHAndAnime: I did! And it worked fine in every mode. I would have mentioned it, but it wasn't a feature I spent a TON of time with. But if you prefer to play couch co-op, then BO3 is a safe bet.

What a great thread. We should have more of these.

@mmahardy i pretty much enjoy your reviews , keep up the good work!

@mjorh: That's the plan. Maybe if we ask really, really nice he'll do one for his Rise of the Tomb Raider review. I know we're doing one for Fallout 4.

@GameSpot@mmahardy: why didn't you adress the PC version that is broken as hell in the video review?

It's a great move and let's us know more about the reviewers and their perspectives. Thanks.

And yeah it'd be great if he does one for his Rise of the Tomb Raider review

@mmahardy: why didn't you put glitches and framerate issues as bad in the review?