'Call of Duty: Black Ops': Treyarch Attempts to "Modernize" Warfare

Treyarch's greatest "sin" is in failing to really add anything new despite having the same advantage that Infinity Ward had recognized and realized with Modern Warfare -- that an interactive medium might offer a new perspective on an old story, the war story.

Call of Duty: Black Ops

Publisher: Activision
Format: Xbox 360 (reviewed), Playstation 3, PC
Price: $59.99
Players: 1-18
ESRB Rating: Mature
Developer: Treyarch
Release Date: 2010-11-09

As many gamers know, the Call of Duty series in its original World War II setting was originally developed by Infinity Ward, who would trade off development responsibilities with Treyarch for later installments in the series, specifically Call of Duty 3 and Call of Duty: World at War. While Infinity Ward would expand the franchise beyond that most famous of wars of the twentieth century in its two more overtly fictitious Modern Warfare titles, Treyarch's offerings have -- up until now -- remained within the boundaries of World War II conflicts.

While the franchise itself has been successful overall (to say the least) with both developers managing to release titles that sell in record numbers, it has been Infinity Ward that has tended to create games that garner the most media attention, both in terms of critical praise as well as controversy. The first installment of Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 4 was unique, not merely in terms of setting, but in its innovative use of the first-person perspective to create some truly compelling playing experiences. The initial shock in the game comes when the player's first perspective on “modern warfare” is one in which the character whose eyes they are seeing through is assassinated.

First-person shooters are games about kicking ass and taking names, not meditations on death and helplessness, but Infinity Ward took advantage of what the genre typically offered the player in terms of experiences and turned conventionality on its head. From the experience of a nuclear blast from an immediate perspective to the weirdly distancing effect of bombing opposition in a game through a “real” bomber's heads up display (which ironically resembles a game screen), Modern Warfare offered traditional first-person action alongside some unconventional framing of the experience of war. None of which even begins to touch on the furor evoked by the infamous “No Russian” sequence in their follow up to Modern Warfare, a sequence in which the player (in the role of a deep cover military agent) could choose to participate in a terrorist attack on an airport. Infinity Ward seems committed to provocation in a genre that is usually seen as pretty unexceptional and formulaic.

In a sense, it seems that Infinity Ward is more aware of the interactive medium itself, in terms of how it can be utilized to present unique experiences and to provoke through the manner in which those experiences become very personal to a player involved in a story rather than merely observing it as a viewer. Treyarch, on the other hand, has generally remained a developer much more conventional in its approach to story telling. Their World War II titles feature stories familiar to anyone that has seen a war film. These are stories about soldiers on the ground, fighting for the country they love, and forging bonds with fellow soldiers. While World at War's release followed Modern Warfare and tended to have praise heaped on it by fans of the previous game, I found it a very pretty, but rather ho hum follow up to Infinity Ward's more daring and unsettling picture of war. What Infinity Ward had taught me was that while Treyarch's World at War was rehashing all the tropes of Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and the like, that their greatest sin had been in failing to really add anything new to those ideas despite having the same advantage that Infinity Ward had recognized and realized with Modern Warfare -- that an interactive medium might offer a new perspective on an old story, the war story.

Treyarch's latest offering in the Call of Duty saga is their first effort at moving forward or “modernizing” a bit. The most obvious effort in attempting to “make it new” is obvious in that this is their first title not set during World War II. Black Ops is instead set during the 1960s, during the Bay of Pigs invasion and then later moving into the Vietnam era. Largely this is a Cold War story, and Treyarch has additionally gone to some effort to tell this story in a different manner than they have in the past. The main bulk of the plot concerns Alex Mason, a special forces operative assigned to a black ops team. In the initial cutscenes, Mason is introduced as a prisoner of an unseen captor that wants information on a series of numbers, the meaning of which he believes that Mason can unlock. This frame-tale serves as the jumping off point for retelling a story through a series of memories that Mason recounts during interrogation that ultimately revolve around the numbers and their meaning.

All of this is interesting, though it has more of a kind of “James Bondsy” sort of feel to it than one might expect in a Call of Duty game (then again, it is called Black Ops, so fair enough, I guess). In particular, it is refreshing to experience a few historical battlefields that have largely gone unexplored in video games. While The Godfather II played around with Castro's Cuba, I can't recall any titles that have really gotten into the Bay of Pigs on the ground. Additionally, Vietnam is an event that has largely been left alone by game developers, perhaps out of concern for the difficulty in presenting a more morally ambiguous war and one in which victory and loss are harder for an American audience to feel comfortable about. Within the historical spaces defined by the game though, Treyarch doesn't explore a great deal of new ground. An initial feint concerning the assassination of Fidel Castro makes it appear that Treyarch wants to go in a really wild direction, but it turns into nothing more than a feint (though I hear that the Cuban government is less than thrilled with the implications of that early scene).

There is also a brief scene involving participation in torture (that participation, unlike the “No Russian” sequence, is one that the player does not have an option to opt of by simply watching and not pulling a trigger). However, it is so brief and (fairly) innocuous that I doubt that a whole lot of hackles are going to be raised by it. Instead, despite the weird “flashback” storytelling device (which kind of breaks down as Treyarch also continues the Call of Duty tradition of having the player trade roles with different soldiers involved in a conflict -- when the player takes on the role of a CIA operative, Jason Hudson, in some of the flashbacks it makes less sense given the foregrounding of the plot in Mason's interrogation – the story is representing his memories and should all be from his perspective, right?) and these brief nods to the kind of edgy interactive moments that Infinity Ward has made famous in their iterations of the series, Black Ops largely tells a pretty conventional war story (in this case, the soldier haunted by his past) within the frame of a really familiar first-person shooter.

All of this isn't to say that the game is bad. The visuals are outstanding as usual and basic play is diverting and there are some generally well designed levels. It is just that there isn't anything especially outstanding about it all.

Frankly, the most innovative element of Treyarch's most recent work with Call of Duty is their “Zombies” mini-game, which appears here again with a pretty amusing Cold War facelift. “Zombies” does do something unique in the way that it adds a layer of strategy and depth to the first-person shooter as the player is forced to figure out how to control a confined space and when and how to upgrade weapons in order to survive. I guess in that sense Treyarch does have something in common with Infinity Ward -- they both do their best work when they push the genre in surprising new directions. I just wish that there were more new surprises in the main game itself.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.