Call of Duty Black Ops 7 Review: Strong multiplayer saves a complete mess of a campaign

It likely wasn’t the hope of Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 developers Treyarch that the most viral moment from its new co-op-focused campaign would be clips of streamers crying with laughter as a 30-foot, giant-headed monster swiped at the player.

As soon as the TikToksphere brands you as “Aldi Skibidi Toilet,” one fears that there’s simply no way back from that. Such is the paradox of Call of Duty Black Ops 7. A game with multiplayer so utterly engrossing and moreish that we’re trying to carve out any spare second to play it, and a campaign so poor it’s a case for not bothering with them going forward.

First, to the campaign. Credit where credit is due, they are trying something different. It’s a story built to be played with four players, following new and returning characters on a globe-trotting jaunt across 11 missions and a new endgame mode called, well… Endgame. That’s largely where the credit ends, however.

Obviously, designing encounters for four players instead of one should make for a pretty different game, but due to the fact that Black Ops 7 doesn’t give you AI teammates if you’ve no real friends to play with, it has to account for both, leading to corridors of humans, robots, and ghosts (?) streaming towards you.

When it’s not scratch-your-head daft, it’s worse: dull. The campaign is also full of strange choices, likely born from this focus on the four-player co-op. You can’t pause. There are no checkpoints. If you fall asleep during a mission (a real risk), tough luck.

The cast, including Kiernan Shipka, Milo Ventimiglia, Michael Rooker, and more, deserve credit for doing their best with what they were given, but the Black Ops story has jumped so far past any shark it was once over that it’s totally incomprehensible. The whole thing feels like a film you see advertised in the corner of your smart TV while you’re changing inputs.

“The cast deserve credit for doing their best with what they were given, but the Black Ops story has jumped so far past any shark it was once over that it’s totally incomprehensible”

The production quality of the campaign is high, obviously, because it always is, and they spend an ungodly amount of money on it, but it’s in service of very little other than the inspiration for some really good multiplayer maps.

The campaign is also full of Warzone-style chests that offer loot or equipment for your character. This is a frankly shameless concession to the TikTok-pilled generation that simply could not fathom the idea of a slow-paced single-player shooter without something to sprint towards and open.

Call of Duty’s biggest problem in recent entries is the obsession with smashing different modes together like you’ve emptied 40 jigsaws on the ground in an attempt to make one picture. One year’s it’s making Zombies more like Warzone. Next, it’s making the campaign more like a hero shooter.

This year, it’s forcing Warzone elements into the campaign. Such is the concession to the idea that everything has to be a dopamine factory, this year’s campaign also gives out weapons blueprints and experience that contribute to your overall level. It’s honestly shocking that there isn’t a campaign battle pass (yet) or the option to play through it as the K-Pop Demon Hunters for a tenner a skin.

However, alongside the mess of the campaign is a slice of pure Call of Duty multiplayer that’s some of the best in years. Gunplay is fast, frenetic, and still best-in-class. Unlocks come thick and fast, and the game does its very best to fast-track you to be using the kinds of weapons you like, rather than being stuck with low-level rubbish out of obligation.

This year’s set of maps is also one of the best in ages, with a strong mix of near-future military installations and good old-fashioned random locations like a yacht, someone’s mansion, or the streets of Tokyo. It’s hard to quantify what makes a great Call of Duty map, but personally, I was struck by how quickly I could commit the layouts to memory.

They’re not needlessly big; they’re impressive-looking and busy without affecting your ability to read the game. There are very few maps on the current roster that seem to be universally skipped while voting, and that’s a great sign.

New score streaks, like the Deployable Armored Weaponized Groundcraft (or, D.A.W.G) add some new depth to the classic UAV, airstrike, and helicopter set-up. The DAWGs are also extremely tough to take down and totally disrupt play. Legion, which is a swarm of drones that targets the enemy team and explodes on contact, is so overpowered and chaotic that we’re happy it’s restricted to those players who manage to bag 15 kills without dying.

In contrast to the “throw everything at the wall and nothing sticks but you accidentally smash 10 windows” approach of the campaign, this is virtually the Platonic ideal of Call of Duty multiplayer. There are small bugs to be smoothed out, and the alleged use of AI on some in-game graphics is a total stain, but when it comes to gunplay, maps, modes, and streaks, it’s very difficult to find fault.

Zombies, though not a mode we devote as much time to as the multiplayer, seems to be back in a place that fans will be happy with. It’s round-based, full of Easter Eggs and needlessly deep lore, and most importantly, it’s fun. Your mileage will always vary in Zombies based on who you’re playing with, or the patience of randoms to keep up their end of the bargain.

I’m happy that it’s moved away from the Warzone-infused edition of a few years ago. Zombies can just be Zombies. Multiplayer can just be multiplayer. So why can’t the campaign be the campaign?