Review: Cold War gets reheated in ‘Call of Duty’ |

Review: Cold War gets reheated in ‘Call of Duty’

Activision’s “Call of Duty” series has become such a global phenomenon that the controversies surrounding each release are more interesting than the games themselves. The latest edition has even drawn the wrath of the Cuban government, thanks to a mission based on an attempt to assassinate a young Fidel Castro.

“Call of Duty: Black Ops” (for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, $59.99) has plenty of other elements that are engineered to trigger protest. It’s mostly set during the Vietnam War, still a touchy subject for any pop-culture treatment. There’s some entirely gratuitous torture. And there’s a weird post-game fantasia in which Castro joins President John F. Kennedy and future President Richard Nixon in fighting off a zombie invasion.

All the free publicity — day-one sales totaled $360 million — tends to obscure the question of whether “Black Ops” is actually any good. The short answer: If you’re a “Call of Duty” fan, you won’t be disappointed. If you’re not a fan, this installment won’t change your mind.

The solo campaign traces the career of U.S. special forces operative Alex Mason, who’s being interrogated by an unseen tormentor. His adventures are presented as flashbacks, bouncing from the streets of Cuba to the jungles of Vietnam to the wastelands of Siberia between 1961 and 1968. The story draws unashamedly from cinema, cribbing not just from Vietnam movies like “Apocalypse Now” and “The Deer Hunter,” but also from Cold War thrillers like “The Manchurian Candidate” and “Dr. Strangelove.”

All the usual first-person shooter locales are in place: You fight in a city, you fight in the snow, you even fight aboard a sinking ship. The combat is relentless, and the controls are slick and satisfying. But the enemies are dumber than I remember them being in previous “Call of Duty” titles; many of them won’t even notice you until you’ve shot them in the face.

More irritating is the near-constant presence of an escort to guide you through each level. Shooter experts will find it condescending that almost every mission requires you to follow another character through the war zone. It makes “Black Ops” feel more linear than most war games, with little reward for venturing beyond a predetermined path.

If you want more freedom, you’ll have to venture into online action. The essence of multiplayer — kill everyone else — remains unchanged, but you earn “CoD points” for everything you do. You can gamble those points in Wager Matches, which include the game’s most absorbing challenges: Gun Game, in which you get a better weapon with every kill, and One in the Chamber, in which you start with just one bullet.

The comprehensive selection of multiplayer modes and maps makes “Black Ops” essential for anyone who enjoys shooting at friends and strangers over the Internet. The addition of wagering makes it all the more addictive.

“Black Ops” developer Treyarch has been the second-string player on Activision’s “Call of Duty” team. But sister studio Infinity Ward, which revitalized the series with the 2007 landmark “Modern Warfare,” has been rocked by the departure of its founders, forcing Treyarch to step up its game.

For the most part, Treyarch has come through, delivering a visually dazzling adventure. Its twisty, time-skipping narrative is more ambitious than expected, though the missions themselves are generally predictable. And one question continues to bug me: If Alex Mason and his buddies are so skilled at supposedly clandestine black ops, how come they make so much noise• Three stars out of four.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.