
Call of Duty has well and truly gone off the deep end. In Black Ops 7, the latest Treyarch effort, any hint of realism the series may have once possessed is gone.
In its place are controllable machetes the size of buildings, boss encounters on a scale that would make God of War proud, and friendly zombies. The campaign is so far removed from the franchise’s 22-year history that it dominates the framing of the entire release, overshadowing anything it manages to get right, such as another extensive multiplayer suite.
This is Call of Duty at its most absurd, and Black Ops 7 represents a new kind of low: it feels desperate in a year with stiffer and better-quality competition.
Usually the most disposable part of the package, the campaign and all its failings are what’s driving the conversation around this year’s release. It’s no longer a single player story; instead, you matchmake into co-op missions for up to four players. It is possible to go alone, but you put yourself at a disadvantage with no AI teammates to help.

The reliance on co-op means you must maintain an internet connection to experience the narrative, and any server updates from Activision’s side force you out of a level to update. You won’t receive a checkpoint from the mission you were playing, meaning it has to be started over again. You also can’t pause the game, and you’ll be kicked from a mission if you leave it to idle for too long.
It’s a mess.
That’s all before the actual contents of the story mode: 11 missions bordering on farcical. Set 10 years after the events of Black Ops 2, a villain from that instalment has reappeared and released a fear toxin that forces the lead unit Spectre One into multiple nightmare sequences usually fit for horror and sci-fi games… or something like that.
Nonsensical is putting it lightly, and the same can be said for most set pieces bringing the plot to life. There is a certain charm to the absurdity, with the excellent feel, controls, and gunplay of a Call of Duty game making each combat encounter enjoyable. It’s just the setting, tone, and objectives of Black Ops 7 so wildly contrast the two decades of games before it that the whole thing is played so bizarrely.

Because of this, some genuinely fun sequences are getting lost in the chatter surrounding the sheer stupidity of the game’s premise. The campaign in Black Ops 7 is really dumb and really daft. However, there’s still some joy to be found in its silliness.
Luckily, all of that is reserved for the campaign, allowing the multiplayer to remain one of the best examples of online action in the business. If you’ve invested in any Call of Duty game’s multiplayer modes of the past 10 years, then there’ll be very few surprises, but the content offering is once again substantial enough to support another year of play before the next title comes out.
19 maps and a wide range of modes allow you to invest in your account level and character unlocks, with much more to come in free seasonal updates. It’s a fast-paced version of online multiplayer that incorporates a wall jump, but it still manages to mostly be a “boots on the ground” Call of Duty.

Entirely new attractions like Overload and a 20v20 Skirmish mode that incorporates the abilities and gadgets from the co-op campaign are then welcome additions to the overall package.
It’s a relatively familiar and unexciting offering because Call of Duty is so fine-tuned to offer enough deep levelling systems and cosmetics to keep its hardcore players coming back for more. You can go through the main levels system and prestige 10 times over, and then there’s even more after that. You can also level up and prestige your weapons, complete challenges, and, in a couple of weeks, work through a Battle Pass.
Black Ops 7 multiplayer is the same as it’s been for years now because this is what works — there’s almost too much to do, so that its most committed players are satisfied for the 12 months to come. And then the cycle repeats.

The one and only good thing to come out of the campaign’s insistence on an Internet connection is you can actually get a head start on the multiplayer through persistent progression across all modes. Now, you can level up your character and guns in missions and carry those unlocks over for instant use online.
It won’t make up for random disconnects, lost progress, and annoying teammates, but there is at least one very slight benefit to the requirement.
Zombies rounds out the package and impresses once again with tons of depth and the biggest map the mode has ever had. You’ll use a vehicle to navigate it, either trying to get to the highest round possible or working on secret missions and easter eggs.
By this point, you already know if you love Zombies or not, so it’s another solid addition that plays it safe enough to where it’s unlikely to attract any newcomers. What’s there at launch is at least really strong.

At least this year, the visuals aren’t there to match it, however. Recent Call of Duty titles have delivered absolutely sublime PS5 graphics, particularly during single player cutscenes. The online requirement may be playing a part here, but the cinematics of Black Ops 7 are a step back compared to recent entries.
Despite a fairly comprehensive offering and more examples of quality than trash, the game is never going to shake the absurdity as its main talking point. It’ll forever be known as the one with the silly co-op campaign. In reality, Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 is actually decent, but in a year with ARC Raiders and Battlefield 6, that’s nowhere near good enough anymore.
Conclusion
The most ridiculous Call of Duty has ever been, all of Black Ops 7’s multiplayer strengths are overshadowed by the silliest campaign in the franchise’s history. It’s still quality online, and the Zombies mode is as solid as ever. They don’t matter quite as much, though, when a co-op campaign manages to reframe an entire release into one of stupidity.





Comments 65
A 6 seems generous in the extreme for an entry that looks like it's been phoned in.
$69 billion dollars :'D
I would never guess from those screenshots that it was a COD game.
They seem to be churning them out too quickly, and it's becoming a creativity and quality issue. They should take next year off regardless of if GTA 6 hits that November date or not.
As someone who has bought these games year in, year out, from day one just for the campaign, I'm out. I stopped playing BLOPS6 when I reached those immersion-breaking, stupid hallucination sections. Hopefully people vote with their wallet and force them to rethink...
Gave it better than Px never saw that coming 🤣
Remember the days when Ghosts was the lowest point in the series' history? Look how far we've fallen.
So... what, you fight Scarecrow in the new Call of Duty? lol
I'd probably try it out for cheaps if it wasn't online only. No reason a campaign shouldn't be single-player. That's an insane choice. Multiplayer modes already exist.
The timing of the worst Call of Duty coming out right after the best Battlefield is very favorable for EA. I've always liked Battlefield better and it's nice others will get to break free of Call of Duty and find out why.
Remember it's too big to fail....

I haven't played the campaign yet which is strange in itself, as normally the first thing I do every year, and I think 6/7 would be reasonable before the campaign.
So if the campaign is as bad as people are saying, a 5/6 sounds about right.
I see no reason to spend $70 on this as opposed to continuing to play Black Ops 6.
I've been buying CoD every year for the last 3 years; im having fun in the multiplayer. Haven't played the campaign for the last 3 years
Whole review: this game is bad. Score: not bad.
Still cannot take guy from Heroes seriously as a soldier not that this looks like a real war anywhere. Has he done anything decent since Heroes come to that matter?
Really weird that they force online co-op for the campaign.
@Darude84 I guess you didn't read the whole review then?
@LiamCroft Is it safe to say that the campaign would have been better if it wasn't a CoD title?
It sounds to me like the devs at Raven/Treyarch are desperate to flex their creative muscle to craft a standout sci-fi campaign, but are constrained by the need to do so under the CoD banner.
@LiamCroft I did. Didn’t read like a “not bad” to me.
The original, best cod imo, since then a steady drop off into utter stupidity
Released a Toxin ??
Is this cod of Scarecrow from Batman
Why do they keep getting away with this AI generated slop.all the sheep that buy it that's how.
U would think arm bells would start to ring after the MW2 going into MW3 shambles but no.vote with your wallets bit they won't which is sad.i may just go back to retro if this is the state we're getting now
Trying to be too much to too many people. It needs to go back to the likes of Modern Warfare and World at War (still my favourite entry) - just straight up, solid shooting in a warzone. But then, is that enough these days?
@stylon they won't though as they are sheep
Is this the first CoD completely driven by Microsoft? Or does this still have old Activision DNA? Such a shame. Always hoping for an exciting campaign at least. Oh well.
@Nakatomi_Uk If you look at some of the screenshots going around atm, a boss fight really does look like the Scarecrow section from Arkham Asylum 😂
Devs thought they were making a new Halo game
Giving this game a 6 is way too kind, it deserves a 3 or even generous a 4
and to think people complained about COD back in the day when it was actually good.
@Darude84
"[Absurdity] overshadowing anything it manages to get right, such as another extensive multiplayer suite."
"There is a certain charm to the absurdity..."
"The excellent feel, controls, and gunplay of a Call of Duty game making each combat encounter enjoyable."
"Some genuinely fun sequences are getting lost in the chatter"
"However, there’s still some joy to be found in its silliness."
"Multiplayer [...] remain[s] one of the best examples of online action in the business."
"Zombies rounds out the package and impresses once again"
"More examples of quality than trash"
I'd say the review goes back-and-forth a bit too much on if the absurdity ruins its overall quality. But that seems to be more of a striking point about the game's extrinsic circumstance; quality-wise, there's several references to the campaign being decent fun. And the multiplayer and zombie modes are really given nothing but praise.
The review gives off more a tone of disappointment rather than outright objection to its quality. So yeah, overall NOT BAD, but with a lot of caveats.
A 6 seems way too generous for this, geeze what do they gotta do to get it lower 😂😂😂😂😂
@MonkeyGibs I highly doubt Microsoft is giving Activision much input on anything as of yet. Kinda like how Sony let Bungie do its thing before it started imploding, only Activision is worth 10 times as much and, hence, can be trusted to keep making the dough.
Outside of demanding GamePass support and the occasional brand synergy, I think it's safe to assume Microsoft will have little to no influence over Acti's biggest franchises for a long while.
@Can-You-Believe-Sith Make an actual bad game.
I think there's two important things people are missing here:
1. Treyarch had one year to make this game (disregarding any overlapping development time they had). The last time Activision forced them to do this, they shipped a game with NO campaign at all. And when Infinity Ward was forced to do the same, they shipped a piss-poor WarZone campaign mod. That they managed to put together a campaign with actual levels in the first place is somewhat admirable. Regardless, anyone paying attention knew this wasn't going to be anything to write home about.
2. The CoD mines are a real...figurative thing. I think if the zany, wacky antics are the campaign are indicative of anything, it's that Treyarch would desperately love to work on anything other than a military shooter.
@Doomcrow There's nothing about this that's similar to Halo.
It's about as alike Halo as it is Call of Duty 2.
@Oram77 Check back in a year when Infinity Ward and/or Sledgehammer games has a "course correcting, single-player focused" entry ready to go and the conversation about the series completely turns around.
The internet is as fickle as it is angry.
Good thing I pre ordered Kirby air riders
@Silenos 6 seem overly generous, I agree.
I thought BO3 was rockbottom but somehow they managed to deliver an even crappier campaign. That’s also an achievement in itself.
A very generous 6. I would say a 4 is more like it. I was so mad when I finally figured out how to play the campaign that, after about 30 minutes, I wasn't even angry. I just quietly quit the game, uninstalled it and have not looked back. Trash, brought to you by Microsoft. I now know that they release games on Game Pass half cooked and they do not care. I believe their mentality is - "at least it's on game pass, so what did you expect?" I honestly now believe that. I mean - Redfail, Starfailed and now, Call of Poopy.
I'm not sure whether the current development teams are just not very good or their corporate overlords are making bad decisions. Could be both I suppose. Either way they'll be forced into a rethink with the amount of competition finally stifling sales. I don't know why anyone on Xbox or PC would buy this mediocre product if they have Gamepass but for the multiplayer die hards it'll always be good value.
It's frustrating because the mechanics in COD have always been fairly solid and up there with the best in the genre. If they could just manage a good campaign with a coherent story, interesting characters you actually care about somewhat, properly implemented AI and lasting say, eight to fifteen hours - I and many others might consider buying it again.
Between releasing the worst entry right after one of (if not the best) best Battlefield games out there and getting squeezed by GTA next year, there's a very very good chance that COD will join Tony Hawk Pro Skater or many other currently dead but once big games.
I was almost gonna feel sorry for them. Then I realized I have to work tomorrow and the billion-dollar company that owns this game shelled out $70 billion mostly just to put their name on this flaming pile of pixelized pestilence!
@RoomWithaMoose @Darude84 I have to agree with you two here. Reading this review gives me the impression that the game is OK but not great. It does go back and forth quite a lot and I guess it points out what's good and bad but from what I've seen leading up to its release and actual gameplay vids I think it looks a right load of cack to be honest. BF6 actually has a campaign and looks the business too and Arc raiders is just sublime in its utter chaotic randomness..COD desperately needs to get back to its roots and stop trying to pander to the tik tok generation.
CoD has been running for so many years, maybe it needs to stop?
As an IP, it definitely peaked some years ago and since then, on average, it's been on the downward slope.
At least change the devs, bring in new teams, fresh blood, fresh visions. Battlefield 6 as a direct competitor is doing great so it's time to change some core pillars in CoD if they are so set to keep it going.
But then again it's Microsoft, and like any big corporation "biggest profits with smallest investments" is in their nature.
Just like the Diablo IP has become a vision-less mess of non-cohesive stupid ideas for the sake of profit, I'm not surprised CoD is on the same path.
It's time for COD to rest in peace.
And in this comments section lies the problem....'I've bought every COD every year' etc...why should they do anything different when the sheep just buy each pointless iteration regardless...games like this are the enemy of games
@Romans12 Saying a professional reviewers opinion is 'wrong' despite you having only played 30 minutes of the game is quite funny tbh
The only Call of Duty game I’ve ever played is the one with the zombie mini game, many years ago, so I know basically nothing about this franchise. But this review is hysterical reading it as someone who thought the franchise was a military shooter themed around some war, somewhere, at some point in time.
I've played COD since the very first game back in 2003, when it really did break the mould and stood head and shoulders above the competition. I've religiously bought it year after year. It's now become a parody of its own existence and a complete waste of money. Last years effort was poor, and I'd seen the grumblings about this years, so I jumped across to BF6 and I cannot see me coming back.
This is what happens when you take gamers for granted.
im enjoying it 🤷 im also enjoying battlefield and arc raiders
Yikes... CoD has played the same formula for too long: new guns, some new maps, lots of old maps, silly skins, different iterations of overlapping attachments, prestige to do it all again up to 10 times. It is boring, recycled, and lacks innovation. This is a bad, bad franchise.
@Ralizah Buy it second hand to make sure that they dont get your money
I have not bought since the 2014 remake and im happy i never did.
stopped playing CoD after Ghosts, just not the same anymore. hearing alot of hate about the new one, they need to take a break and take it a different direction at this point.
Some might say it's 6 stars out of 7. 😂
@Jammer Actually when i see him I just think of the show "this is us" which was a really, really great show. It was critically acclaimed. Which doesn't mean much, cause its subjective, depends on your taste, but still. But that show is verrrry far from what COD is. It follows a family through some real life drama. The whole family is the main protagonist so he is main, but not the one and only main. He plays the father of the family.
He was really good in that. I think he's a great actor, but kind of head scratching for this genre of media
@Papasears1982 This is the first year I will not buy a COD in ages. I never played any campaign and I've had them all since the first console game COD 2 back on 360. I'm not much a fan of FPS campaigns, just multiplayer. TBH I haven't been happy with any of them in years, but the twitchy multiplayer was my hook.
Battlefield fell from grace but is back big time this year. I was always a huge fan, got it right along with COD when they were good. So BF6 is my jam and COD is dead to me.
The only way I'll ever jump back on board with COD is if they make it a serious grounded military game again (no BS beavis/butthead or rap artist skins) or maybe when ps6 hits and they upgrade the engine so much that its a show stopper. I'm a sucker for games that are eye candy. I just prefer a serious looking real military shooter aesthetic. And beavis skins don't go there
@stylon I have tried to get into the series so many times, but stopped after I bought BLOPS 2, when it was current on WiiU. I realized the games were not for me because everyone pointed to that game as a high mark and I couldn't stand it. Walk forward, shoot things at mid-screen standing in a straight line, cutscene, repeat. I could see the budget on screen, even for the WiiU, and the shooting felt good, but I just didn't enjoy it at all. I dont think they want to build decent campaigns anymore.
God this IS an awful game
1.Found God of War Norse series bosses boring so to me the Greek era scale was way better. Bosses don't interest me a lot with fighting versus strategy that's engaging or more interesting attacks so they could be 'scale' interesting but fights themselves boring to play.
2.People seem to forget how Unreal Tournament and even old Star Wars Battlefront was. You can make good multiplayer based campaign and have story. But people don't they have 'this is how an IP is' and that's it. But I play more games for gameplay design so I am going to talk about it from that angle and explore more.
I get yes people want a story, or they want more particular level design/production value in such a way, but it seems they want to make the campaign just bot based multiplayer prep and that is kind of sad yes.
Then again this is the series that took too long to offer poppable tires for vehicles in any mode yet that should be a no brainer, but then again even movies don't do that as why do stunts like that I guess or CGI it. Smart soldiers think about their options, but animators or others don't go that far for a reason, they don't want to ruin things or can't be bothered or don't think outside the box of strategies for combat and it shows.
Then again most people seem to forget animations/programming anything is possible, yet they follow real rules and that's why games are boring and game design is so safe and bland.
People into singleplayer aren't into multiplayer or bot matches unless they actually care to. So to me yeah I'd put even Declassified over this as while they were short they were still singleplayer missions with enough to them with the same flow as a campaign regardless of the moments being short, sped up of QTEs and what was needed.
The marketing sigh. The first trailer was good, the rest have been so bad. Some very Advanced Warfare EB Games comparable (ok), to even worse. Activision has the worst marketing for this game it's hilarious.
I will say the silliness I don't mind, so many are serious I can't be bothered sometimes and the tone/gameplay is so bland.
Doesn't change that COD is still safe gameplay but it's something at least in tone.
The modes seem fair, nothing amazing but I mean AW felt limited and people said it was better then Ghosts and I was like what? I get people mean in how they feel or progression or whatever but even then having more modes versus less modes or whatever the case of maps always confused me.
The amount here seems fair but I haven't really liked multiplayer map design as to me they have less gimmicks and feel very safe, maybe they are good, but to my extent they seem very boring but look nice or fit general flow but seem never interactive and are set piece lacking and forgettable to me. Just wow like this location. Ok. No interesting docks with shipping containers moving, they just 'have shipping containers' or whatever. Everything is so static and bland. Whether the player navigates them, camps or pulls a lever. None of it is there. It's just bland and lifeless.
Carry over of weapons is a nice touch.
Zombies/multiplayer seem pretty standard, or not covered deep enough in the review.
I respect the review saying it's silly, as to me I appreciate it more then going oh it's not movie like/dramatic enough and I'd be like oh ok I'm done reading this review then. But nope it's a good review and I kept reading.
Also if it's still very 'online for every mode' for DRM then yeah I respect mentioning that too.
Part 2:
I haven't cared for COD in years anyway and this makes it easier to still ignore them and play PS3 era shooters with fun mechanics left behind and PS2 era CODs I haven't finished yet. Try the other Battlefields or finish Medal of Honor games.
Otherwise modern shooters are pretty boring and the story driven ones flopped or we have ot wait on still so..... I might as well finish the remaining PS2/3 era shooters left behind with cool ideas and otherwise continue to play other genres like i am.
Got my COD Wii/Wii U fix to try them out so not much else.
I really don't think you can blame Microsoft. It's true they've acquired studios who then released mediocre and dire titles.
I really don't think Phil Spencer had waded in to their offices and started dictating though. If anything developers hadn't been giving him the true picture. Red Fall being a classic example.
We then had Starfield and Hellblade being OK but not meeting expectations. Again I don't see that as Microsofts fault. The former was likely a long way into development prior to acquisition and Ninja Theory retained their creative freedom.
Really don't think MS meddled with COD and are responsible for the nonsense in this game.
@StitchJones
amen to that (b ' ' )b
Who idea was this to do campaign co op ? Madness. Asking for trouble .
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...