I'll start this one off by saying that I did not enjoy the first Black Ops game, and unfortunately I haven't been motivated to give the second and third installment a chance. None the less, there are still many good qualities of the game, and it has garnered many fans. Thus, I shall review this game for you. So! Let's dive right in!

The story of Black Ops takes place during the 1960s and centers around the flashbacks of Alex Mason, who is being interrogated about a series of numbers and a murder he doesn't remember committing. Some of Mason's memories are said to be faulty as they tie to a plot called Nova-6, far bigger than the missions that Mason himself was a part of.

1. Graphics: The graphics in Black Ops are actually quite spectacular. Just in the opening alone, the animation looks on par with 2016 and 2017 animation, being almost perfectly realistic; a woman is speaking into a device, saying a series of numbers, a cigarette slowly smoldering in an ash tray. Her skin and lip texture is flawless, and the smoke looks smooth and sheer.

But this kind of animation doesn't stay consistent through out the game. Though, that is not to say it is bad; it's better than the original MW animation, though not quite the same as the opening animation. Flames are a common sight, as is water, snow, and sparks of electricity. All of these are impressive; the characters themselves may not look perfectly realistic, but a lot of the scenery and interactive material looks pretty legit. 

Over all, I give this section a 5/5

2. Setting: Set in the 60s, it is an interesting time frame. It's not the 40s, which was the main setting for the first installments of Call of Duty, and it's not modern times; it's quite a nice switch up.

What is also refreshing is that the developers did an excellent job of using realistic themes of the time in both American and Russian culture. Since the story takes place around Cold War events, it is very careful to not only talk about what American politics were like (including a scene with Mason in the Pentagon talking to President Kennedy, and various references to America views on Russia and the nuclear threats they held), but they also touched on Russian issues as well, one issue being that the Gulag was still up an running at the time. When Mason is held in Vorkuta, both Mason and the prisoners talk about some of what their captors have done to them, and it is incredibly accurate, which I will explain later.

Honestly, I have no problem with the setting or powers involved in this story, as it is meant to be the tale of an otherwise generic character in a time everyone knows about; details are accurate, and because no one can change history, I can't complain that the Russians are the enemies (again) or that only the Americans seem to be the heroes; it's just the way history and the character dictates.

I'll give this section a 5/5

3. Plot: Ooooh dear. Well, unfortunately, the story for this is not very original. Yes, there are bits and pieces based on real events; that's not the issue, though. What makes it unoriginal? 

The first thing that made it unoriginal was that the characters are all after a villain that they don't end up killing until the end of the first game, in which time (SPOILER ALERT) Frank Woods apparently dies. This is very similar to the first installment of Modern Warfare in which Zakhaev is finally killed, and Price seemingly dies. 

Another thing that is not original is the use of biological chemical agents, similar to what Makarov used in MW. This ends up being a recurring theme through out many more CoD games. 

Finally, the amnesia theme. Granted, this is not something I've seen Call of Duty use before, but many other stories out there have used this theme as a way to excuse any plot holes, or make a run time. 

My other problem with the plot: it's not apparent really until almost the end. Yes, we have flash backs, and yes, each mission does have reason behind it, they don't feed into the main plot as well as they should. Perhaps had there been greater mixing of POVs (only twice are we in someone else's body aside from Mason), this may have provided a better understanding of what was going on throughout the story, instead of throwing it on the audience in the end.

I give this section 2/5 stars. It had some good character threads, but not an over all story.

4. Characters: The characters were reasonably developed in Black Ops. Some of my favorites were Viktor Reznov and Jason Hudson, as they had brief(er) moments of involvement in the story, but still had interesting characters that contributed to the plot very well. I also loved the blend of characters; Americans, Russians, and Germans were all involved, some on lesser scales than others, but still enough to make things diverse. 

But, while I hate to get into what I didn't like, I must: I HATED Woods. There. I said it. Yes, I know many people think he's a raw badass, but I only ever got the impression that he was a stuck up Mary (uh... Gary) Sue. He didn't have enough character flaws that we could see, and he only had one emotion: badassery. He was unrelatable, and maybe that's just because I haven't played the other games where he becomes more important, but still, I couldn't stand him.

My other issue was how little they developed Nikita Dragovich. He was the main antagonist of the game, and apparently had a major effect on Mason and his colleagues, but the audience doesn't know him enough to really say, "Oh, crap! That guys is scary!" or "Nope, this rat needs to die; where's my AK-47?" Nope. He's simply there, we kill him, and he's gone. We get one scene in which we see how evil he is, when he leaves the scientist who created Nova-6 and a few of his own men in a room with the agent and lets them die. Scary? Yes. But if that is the only thing we see him do, then it's not interesting enough. Had they developed him better, say, made him kill a few more people personally, or had he shown up enough times to taunt the American military and government... In fact, had he really even had a speaking part, he would have been a lot more real. To me, he felt kind of fictitious and imaginary.

All in all, I give this section a 2/5 stars.

5. Realistic qualities: I would like to point out how actually realistic a lot of the characters behaved. Granted, like I said before, Woods was VERY unrealistic, at least to me. But the rest of the cast acted very much like a real person would. Mason's confusion was very well played, since he could remember bits and pieces, but when he was repeatedly questioned about the numbers, he became more and more distressed about it. Hudson was also realistic in the way that when you first meet him, he's already apparently kind of a jerk, but obviously a good guy. He acts like any military veteran member I've met. This is just to name a few characters who I found very well made, but I don't have time to write a novella about it.

The settings were also very well done. One of my favorite settings was Vorkuta. Not only was it a real lag used by the Russians to hold POWs and political criminals, but it was also made mostly accurately in the game; inside some of the buildings is unknown, as I've never seen the inside of Vorkuta myself, but the courtyard and the area surrounding the lag was based on photos of the area. Not only did it look accurate, but the atmosphere was perfect: cold, damp, and grime-y. The only issue I would point out would be that Vorkuta closed down officially in 1962, but Mason is there in '63. I would use benefit of the doubt, since the location at the beginning of the mission states that they "suspect detention at Vorkuta, but the exact whereabouts of Mason are unknown," but since the lag strongly resembles Vorkuta, I won't let it slide (mwahaha).

The military is pretty realistic on Black Ops as well. As far as I noticed, it didn't seem too far fetched, nor did the story take too much artistic liberty and have characters run rogue missions with nor repercussions. Mason, for example, went against orders, and while that was a BOSS mission, he did get captured and interrogated for it. Though, that does bring me to the fact that he was still let off and allowed to carry out other missions afterward, which isn't very realistic.

Finally, and this was a huge factor in the game, the addition of different kinds of violence. To me, this was impressive, as in previous games, you could never shoot a dead body and make it bleed, nor could you potentially sever limbs (although, in World at War, you could blow people's heads off). There was also the addition of characters being set on fire while still alive; granted, it is very gruesome, at the same time, it isn't sparing sensitivity at the cost of realism. 

Now, here was my biggest beef: the swearing. There was always language in the other games, especially coarse language, but at the same time, in Black Ops, it was excessive. It distracted from the dialogue and plot line just so they could make someone yell something unprofessional. I think that if they had toned it down a little more, similar to the language in Modern Warfare, it would have been superb. 

I'll give this section 4/5 stars.

In conclusion, Black Ops was not the worst game; in fact, I think it was far better than the new Infinite Warfare game, which I may touch on in the review after next. I think as a whole, this game deserves about 3 stars. Do remember, though, this is based on the single player game mode; this does not include the multiplayer, which was AWESOME by the way, or the Zombies story line (in fact, I actually have to go back and play more of the zombies games so I can understand the story there as well; it sounds very interesting). Therefore, I think in other aspects, Black Ops is likely a 4 or 5 star game, but as for the story, it could have been better

So, what do you all think? Did I judge accurately? What should I review next? Comment below!