User:Zmbro/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cod1

In the decades following its release, retrospective assessments of Call of Duty acknowledge the game's legacy of creating one of the biggest and iconic gaming franchises ever and laying the groundwork for every subsequent game in the series,[1][2] as well as its impact on the first-person shooter (FPS) genre as a whole.[3] Keith Arem, the game's performance director, said of its legacy: "It has really changed the industry from the inside. It pays off in what you're seeing in the production ways that we do things in the video game industry, the way that our scripts are defined, the way that our pipelines are defined, the way actors work. ... Call of Duty was one of the most important titles to showcase why we do what we do."[4] Nevertheless, reception to the game itself has been less favorable over time, with many critics agreeing that the game aged poorly; it has generally placed low in lists ranking the series' games.[1][2][5][6][7][8][9] More positively, the staff of IGN ranked the game number six in their 2024 list of the ten best Call of Duty games, writing: "While it's obviously a little out of date 20 years on, the campaign is still fun to play and it's impossible to understate the foundation it built for the future of not just the Call of Duty series but first-person shooters as a whole."[1]

Cod2

Retrospective assessments of Call of Duty 2 have been mostly positive. Critics have praised the game for its campaign, impressive set pieces, gameplay, multiplayer,[2][5][6][9][10] and innovations over its predecessor that would be mainstays in subsequent games in the series, including health regeneration, smoke grenades, and a grenade damage indicator.[1][3][11] It has been called one of the Xbox 360's best games, one that showcased the console's technical achievements.[1][7][10] Sam Loveridge of GamesRadar+ argued that Call of Duty 2 was "the foundation for the series' rapid rise to dominance".[10] Others have criticized the game as dated and the limitations of the multiplayer on the Xbox 360, allowing only eight players in matches.[1][9][11] In lists ranking the series' games, Call of Duty 2 has placed in the top five,[5][11] with the staff of NME ranking it number two behind Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007),[6] while others have placed it between ten and fifteen.[2][7][3][8][9]

Cod3

Retrospective assessments of Call of Duty 3 have been mostly negative; it has placed low in lists ranking the series' games.[2][5][6][7][9] Critics have criticized the game for lacking in innovation following its predecessors,[2][5] although some noted the game featured elements that would be incorporated into later games in the series, such as vehicles, larger multiplayer maps, and quick-time melee events in the campaign.[6][3][8][9] Due to its short development time, several agreed it was Treyarch's worst Call of Duty game but acted as a "first draft" to their superior later games.[2][5][6][7]

Cod4

Retrospective assessments rank Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare as one of the best games in the franchise,[2][3][7][9] if not the best.[1][11][5][6][10][8] Critics have described the game as a classic,[9][10] and one that changed gaming.[8] The game has received critical acclaim for its campaign, characters, missions (particularly "All Ghillied Up"), and successfully breaking away from the series' World War II roots.[1][11][5][10][9] ComicBook.com's Cade Onder argued Modern Warfare includes "some of the most jawdropping moments in gaming": "It's a game that just builds constant momentum and leaves you on the edge of your seat start to finish, making it an all-time classic."[9] Dan Wenerowicz of Complex said the game represented the start of the "Golden Age" of Call of Duty.[2]

Modern Warfare's multiplayer is considered revolutionary,[1][10][6] introducing numerous conventions that become hallmarks of subsequent Call of Duty games and other first-person shooters, including XP leveling, the "Prestige" system (allowing players to restart from zero), the create-a-class system, perks, killstreaks, and camo grinds.[2][11][7][6] Digital Trends summarized: "Modern Warfare's competitive multiplayer put a renewed emphasis on personal performance rather than winning individual matches, with players now carefully eyeing their kill-to-death ratio as they modified their weapons with custom sights and grips. Call of Duty would no longer play second fiddle to any other series, and its reign would last for the next decade."[5] Other reviewers argued that subsequent games in the series, such as Modern Warfare 2 (2009), Black Ops (2010), and Black Ops II (2012), improved upon the conventions set by Modern Warfare.[1][2][3]

World at War

Retrospective assessments of Call of Duty: World at War have been mostly positive, with some critics calling it one of the series' best entries with the World War II setting.[2][3] In lists ranking the series' games, World at War has generally ranked in the top ten.[1][2][3][5][8] The game has received particular praise for its horror elements.[1][2][7][9] The staff of NME wrote: "World at War does do a surprisingly good job at being scary, with some sections merely being downright unpleasant and others channeling some genuinely spooky energy into their warfare."[6] Several commentators noted the use of blood and gore in the campaign, with many believing that Treyarch successfully recreated the horrors of World War II.[2][3][5][7][9] The staff of NME, however, noted the campaign's high difficulty, which they believed made it frustrating.[6]

World at War is generally remembered as being the introduction of the Zombies mode, a fan favorite mode which became a mainstay in the Call of Duty series.[1][2][5][7][9] Seth Parmer of TheGamer wrote: "[T]he Zombies mode ... birthed an entire storyline and fanbase due to how downright fun and replayable it was."[3] The game's multiplayer was also praised by some for building upon the conventions set by Modern Warfare,[1][5] although others felt it did not distinguish itself enough from its predecessor.[2][6][7]

MW2

Retrospective assessments rank Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as one of the best games in the franchise,[1][5] if not the best.[2][3] Critics have written that the game expanded on the standards set by Modern Warfare,[1][2] with several arguing that Infinity Ward outdid themselves with the sequel.[5][10] Dan Weneroweicz of Complex wrote: "Nearly everything in Modern Warfare 2 was high quality and prioritized fun over anything else. It was a perfect combo of gameplay in that era that will be hard to ever replicate again."[2] The campaign has been praised as one of Call of Duty's finest,[11] with critics highlighting its theatricality, spectacle, pacing, missions (particularly "No Russian"), and emotional weight.[1][2][5][6][9][10]

The game's multiplayer was also praised for expanding on Modern Warfare 2's with restructured loadout and perk systems, additional killstreaks and progression challenges, and new weapons that allowed for cinematic moments for players, such as sniper "quick-scoping".[1][2][11] The map design was also praised, with several of the game's multiplayer maps, such as Terminal and Rust, becoming fan-favorites.[5][7][9] ComicBook.com's Cade Onder called Modern Warfare 2 "one of the most defining multiplayer experiences of its generation",[9] while TheGamer's Cian Maher called it the best multiplayer shooter of all time in 2021.[12] Nevertheless, several have acknowledged the multiplayer's unbalancing issues that made the mode frustrating to play at times and even game-breaking, particularly noting the Tactical Nuke killstreak and "noob-tubing" grenade launchers.[2][3][6][7][8] Critics have also highlighted Modern Warfare 2's cooperative Spec Ops mode as one of the series' best modes.[3][7][9]

Black Ops 1

Retrospective assessments rank Call of Duty: Black Ops among the series' best installments,[1][2][5][6] and it remains one of the series' most popular titles and a fan-favorite.[11][8] Many called the game an improvement over World at War and believed Treyarch established itself as a premier Call of Duty studio with the title, stepping out of Infinity Ward's shadow.[2][5][7][3] Reviewers have praised the campaign as one of the series' best,[1] highlighting its Cold War setting and cast of characters.[11][1][7][6][8] Writers of Digital Trends particularly highlighted the vocal performances from Sam Worthington and Gary Oldman.[5] Some called it Treyarch's best game in the series.[10]

The game's multiplayer mode introduced features that became mainstays in the series, including more customization and cosmetic options, CoD Points, dolphin diving, wager matches, and modes such as One in the Chamber and Gun Game.[2][11][1][3][10][9] NME's staff wrote that the "exceptional" multiplayer "[took] what made Modern Warfare work and lacquer[ed] it with Cold War-era cool".[6] The game also saw the introduction of fan-favorite maps such as Firing Range and Nuketown,[1][2] the latter being re-released in every subsequent Treyarch game in the series.[5] The Zombies mode also received praise for being innovative,[11] introducing larger maps, Easter Eggs, additional gameplay opportunities, and a retro arcade version of the mode.[9][1] Despite its praise, some reviewers believed Black Ops did not reinvent the Call of Duty formula as significantly as previous entries.[7][5]

MW3

Retrospective assessments of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 have been mostly positive, although many critics agreed that the game failed to match the standards set by its two predecessors.[2][7][3][5] Many have criticized it for a lack of innovation.[2][3][9] The campaign has been cited as satisfyingly concluding the trilogy,[1][2][9] although failing to hit the "highs" of its predecessors.[8] Chris Freiberg of Den of Geek summarized: "The campaigns of its predecessors featured some of the most memorable moments in FPS history. Meanwhile, [the] final showdown with Makarov's forces is known for being all over the place narratively and largely recycling set pieces from earlier games."[7] Reception to the game's multiplayer has been mixed. While some believe it was a strong iteration that improved upon its predecessors,[1][9][5][6][8] others believe it was an average experience that lacked the "fun" factor of previous games.[2][3] The writers of Digital Trends believed that Modern Warfare 3 lacked the "passion" of its predecessors, and by 2011, fans had grown fatigued of the Call of Duty series.[5] Nevertheless, the game saw the addition of the Kill Confirmed mode, which became a mainstay in the series' multiplayer experiences.[7]

BO2

Retrospective assessments rank Call of Duty: Black Ops II among the series' best installments,[1][2][6][3][8] with some considering it a "standout",[1] the best Call of Duty title ever,[7][9] and Treyarch's best game in the series.[2][3] The campaign has been praised for its futuristic setting,[8] mission variety, and multiple endings.[9][7][10] The staff of IGN picked Raul Menendez as one of the series' best villains.[1] Chris Freiberg of Den of Geek highlighted the campaign for its freedom and replayability, further praising the addition of customizable loadouts and the player's choices directly impacting the narrative.[7]

The game's multiplayer has been praised as "iconic".[9] It introduced the pick 10 system in create-a-class, which offered greater player freedom and customization, and scorestreaks (replacing killstreaks); these features would remain in subsequent games.[1][7][9][10] Its maps have been called some of the series' finest, while the addition of ranked play allowed for competitive gameplay styles that previous entries lacked.[2] Complex's Dan Wenerowicz described the mode as "the best balance of competitive play we’ve seen in the series".[2] Critics have also praised the Zombies mode for its maps,[9] particularly "Mob of the Dead".[2][7] Cade Onder of ComicBook.com calls Black Ops II "one of the best shooters of its time" and believes "there is a reason" fans have requested a remaster in the years following its release.[9] NME's staff called Black Ops II the last "phenomenal" Call of Duty game before Modern Warfare in 2019.[6]

Ghosts

Retrospective assessments of Call of Duty: Ghosts have been mostly negative; it has placed low in lists ranking the series' games.[2][5][6][3][8][9] Critics have criticized the game as lacking innovation and offering little to differentiate it from previous titles.[2][5][8] Seth Parmer of TheGamer described the game as "underwhelming", writing that Ghosts failed to capture the magic of Infinity Ward's previous games.[3] The campaign's story received criticism for being unmemorable and poorly executed,[2][9] as well as its unresolved cliffhanger ending.[6] The multiplayer was described as "underwhelming",[6] while others believed the maps were some the worst in the series.[8] The game's color palette was also considered bleak and ugly.[2][9] Parmer believed that the Extinction mode failed to match the standards set by Treyarch's Zombies mode.[3] Complex's Dan Wenerowicz argued that Ghosts represented the end of the series' "Golden Age".[2] Nevertheless, Chris Freiberg of Den of Geek responded more positively to Ghosts, praising the campaign as one of the series' best and "in hindsight it made a lot of daring changes that have actually aged pretty well".[7] Ghosts was also the first Call of Duty game to feature sliding, leaning, and animations when interacting with the environment.[6]

Advanced Warfare

Retrospective assessments of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare have been mixed to positive, generally placing in the top 10 in lists ranking the series' games.[6][7][3][8][9] Responses to the futuristic setting and exo-suit gameplay have been positive, with several calling the latter rewarding for adding new mechanics previously unseen in Call of Duty.[2][5][9] The campaign has been received positively for its set pieces and Kevin Spacey's performance.[9] It was described as "stellar" by the staff of NME and "Call of Duty adrenaline at its finest" by Complex's Dan Wenerowicz,[6][2] while Chris Freiberg of Den of Geek noted "unintentionally hilarious" moments, such as the origin of the "Press 'F' to pay respects" meme.[7]

The multiplayer received more mixed responses, with several critics divided on the maps and their designs,[2][6][3] and the exo-suit gameplay making or breaking the experience for players.[7] Dave Aubrey of Sports Illustrated argued that, due to the lack of rear paddles on most game controllers in 2014, the game was "hampered by the controllers of the era".[8] The presence of loot boxes was also criticized.[3] Freiberg described the Exo Zombies mode as "unique".[7] In 2023, Cade Onder of ComicBook.com called Advanced Warfare "deeply underrated", praising Sledgehammer Games for taking a creative risk and delivering "the most innovative Call of Duty game at the time and it may still be".[9]

BO3

Retrospective assessments of Call of Duty: Black Ops III have been mixed. The staff of NME described the game as a "forgettable" entry, with "just too much going on and so little freedom".[6] Critics have criticized the campaign as confusing and convoluted;[8][9] Chris Freiberg of Den of Geek argued that the narrative was weaker when playing solo rather than cooperative.[7] Responses to the multiplayer were also mixed,[6] with some divided on the introduction of Specialists and weapon balancing.[2][9][3] Several argued that the experience improved upon the futuristic mechanics of Advanced Warfare, generating comparisons to Titanfall (2014).[2][9][7] Nevertheless, Freiberg argued that the game represented the start of the franchise being inspired by competitors rather than innovating on its own.[7]

While the game has generally placed below the top 10 in lists ranking the series' games,[5][6][7][3][8][9] several have shown appreciation for Black Ops III, with Complex's Dan Wenerowicz calling it the fifth-best Call of Duty game ever in 2024.[2] Additionally, Dominic Allen of Screen Rant argued that the multiplayer and Zombies modes were the series' best iterations. Allen highlighted the former's map designs and weapons, and the maps and addition of GobbleGums to the latter, making the mode a fan-favorite. Allen called the addition of Supply Drops the game's worst feature.[13] Reflecting on the game's position within the series, ComicBook.com's Cade Onder argued that Black Ops III "pushed the series in exciting new directions, even if it wouldn't maintain course for much longer".[9]

Infinite Warfare

Retrospective assessments of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare have been mixed. Reviewers have generally praised the single-player campaign and Zombies modes, while criticizing the game's multiplayer.[2][5][6][8] Several critics praised the campaign for its set-pieces, focus on a single character, and depth,[5][9] with some arguing that the game offers one of the best Call of Duty campaigns ever.[6][8][9] Writing in 2019, Gareth Damian Martin of PC Gamer praised the game for its science-fiction elements and world-building, concluding that "against all the odds, Infinite Warfare manages to not just be a serviceable science fiction game, but a great one after all."[14]

The multiplayer was criticized for its combat, gunplay, and map designs;[5][6][9] Dave Aubrey of Sports Illustrated believed the experience lacked focus and was not as "grounded" as previous entries.[8] Cade Onder of ComicBook.com said that the multiplayer failed to distinguish itself enough from Advanced Warfare and Black Ops III beyond its space setting.[9] In lists ranking the series' games, some have called Infinite Warfare one of the worst Call of Duty games,[5] if not the worst,[3] while others place it below the top 10.[2][6][7][9]

WW2

  1. 8: praised game for going back to the series' WW2 roots; "The game's campaign was praised for its Band of Brothers-style narrative," commended multiplayer's return to its Division system in place of create-a-class and its Destiny-like social space called Headquarters[11]
  1. 20: "[after returning to the series' ww2 roots], "the game came out and didn’t deliver. The launch was a mess that included problems with servers and hit detection. Divisions for loadouts felt like a Battlefield feature, and weapons were widely imbalanced. Even the maps were poorly designed and Gustav Cannon was the cherry on top as one of the worst arenas in the franchise. War mode was the one saving grace for Multiplayer when the game dropped, and it was well-received as a new mode. After the initial launch, Sledgehammer Games cleaned up some of the post-launch content. But for a COD game, it was too little too late."[2]
  1. 7: "After nearly a decade in modern warfare and the future, Call of Duty returned to where it began in 2017 with Call of Duty: WWII. Set in the European theater and featuring the famous Normandy invasion, it felt like Call of Duty 2 has been remade for the next generation of players. This came with some feeling of déjà vu, but the better characterization and an emotional conclusion helped it from feeling like a basic nostalgia-grab. The multiplayer also shifted away from the excess of its predecessors, focusing on pure boots-on-the-ground combat without compromising the strides the series had made. Its convoluted progression system, however, didn’t work as well, and the Zombie mode felt out of place in an otherwise serious game."[5]
  1. 12: "the WW2 setting make the game feel jaded, but it actually had some fresh ideas, most of them in the campaign."; campaign is enjoyable but forgettable upon completion; "The multiplayer was a bizarre experiment from Sledgehammer, a soft reboot of sorts just before Modern Warfare came along. A social area for WW2 has players crowded around the beach at Normandy, as loot boxes fall from the sky to bestow gifts upon players. It would be grotesque if it wasn’t so outright bizarre."; "Elsewhere, multiplayer is decent but feels too modern, a trap that every World War 2-set Call of Duty seems to fall into since 2007’s Modern Warfare: everything feels slick and modern, with red dots and lasers strapped to 1940s weaponry. Wouldn’t it be better to get some gunplay with a bit of heft to it? Still, it’s possible to have a great time if you load dragon’s breath rounds into your shotgun and go to town. ... A strong entry, but not quite strong enough to land it in the big 10"[6]
  1. 9: "It might seem odd for Call of Duty: WW2 to go back to the Second World War after so much future stuff and the previous game's trip into space (read our Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare review for more on that one), but it works. The reset of all the future tech bring the series back down to its roots and more or less acts like a reboot. The single player suffers a little in the opening half narratively but, for the most part, hits those big set piece moments confidently. It's the multiplayer that really wins here though. Without all the gadgets, tech and spacey stuff this is a much purer expression of what an online shooter should be. Stripped of the drones and satellites the action focuses much more on reactions and spacial awareness and is much more rewarding for it. The new Headquarters mode is also an interesting addition, creating a Destiny Tower like social space for players to hang out in."[10]
  1. 7: "World War II put the Call of Duty series on the map, but the franchise actually took a break from the setting for almost a decade until this 2017 release. That long hiatus paid off, though. You might only play as a single private throughout the campaign, but that smaller focus on the interactions amongst a single squad on Western Front following D-Day makes for one of the most emotional campaigns in the series."; "Turning the clock back to World War II also gave developer Sledgehammer Games the opportunity to incorporate a lot of the advances the series embraced over the years, like a class system and a Headquarters social space while retaining the authentic weaponry and maps of the era. And then there’s a new Nazi Zombies mode. As fun as the various Zombies modes have been over the years, still nothing quite tops mowing down hordes of Nazi Zombies."[7]
  1. 19: "It was just far too ambitious for its own good, ultimately making it suffer in the end."; "Between the Headquarters never working correctly, the new 'War' game mode being somewhat of a disappointment, and the campaign falling a bit flat, it just has too many blunders to climb any further on the list. While it was a blast to revisit the World War II setting, we wish it would have nailed everything it set out to do."[3]
  1. 14: "It’d been a few years since the last COD game set in World War 2, so WWII takes us back there. What more do you need?"[8]
  1. 14: "Call of Duty: WWII was the franchise’s return to World War II for the first time in close to a decade. Fans had been yearning for this for quite a while and it was actually pretty serviceable. While it didn’t blow anyone’s socks off, it was the return to boots on the ground gameplay fans had wanted after a few years of futuristic titles. The Zombies had more of a horror focus than previous years, the campaign provided more of a Band of Brothers angle on a war the series had covered in-depth many times, and the multiplayer tried to take things back to basics, providing for a standard, but solid Call of Duty experience. ... WWII doesn’t do a whole lot to notably innovate beyond a social hub space in multiplayer, but many players found it cumbersome and obnoxious when they just wanted to load directly into a match without having to watch 20 people open crappy loot boxes on the side of a beach."[9]

BO4

  1. 9: "one of the best games in the series to date"; multiplayer "as good as ever", zombies "offered up a deep, memorable experience full of secrets to uncover as you lay waste to hordes of the undead", biggest praise to Blackout[11]
  1. 10: "Black Ops 4 brought the end of an era to Call of Duty. It marked the final game between the Warzone era and the Golden Age of COD that had a distinct engine for so long. The game brought Specialists back over from Black Ops 3, only this time they were boots on the ground. Health regeneration was dictated by stims, and ballistics were introduced to many of the weapons. All of this was an attempt to set up the first iteration of a battle royale, known as Blackout. Despite not having any campaign whatsoever, the Multiplayer component of the game was well-made. Guns felt impactful, Specialists were implemented the right way, and maps were competitive. Many players remember BO4 as the game with no campaign that was the final nail. But the Multiplayer alone places this among the better CODs."[2]
  1. 14: "Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 could have been the game to kill the franchise. For the first time in the main series, Black Ops 4 opted to leave the campaign mode out completely, offering competitive multiplayer, Zombies, and the battle royale mode Blackout instead. Treyarch’s over-the-top approach to storytelling was missed, but the studio managed to deliver one of the best multiplayer modes in the series’ history, along with plenty of Zombies content for fans. It was Blackout that sealed the deal, however. The series’s first crack at battle royale was a huge success, blending classic Call of Duty shooting mechanics with the slow and methodical gameplay from PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. The mode even mixed in classic settings from the earlier games, as well as a section filled with Zombies ready to tear you limb from limb."[5]
  1. 19: "Despite Black Ops being one of the most beloved single-player Call of Duty campaigns, Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 ditched the single-player campaign and its ’70s setting to go for a near-future multiplayer shooter that, frankly, sucked."; "The story was delivered instead in the game’s multiplayer, although you would be forgiven for missing it as you ran around at 500 mph, desperately trying to avoid getting killed by the all-new specialists and their ridiculous signature weapons."; "It’s mostly notable for Blackout, a battle royale mode that was an early attempt at Warzone, and for Specialist Ajax’s 9-bang, a flashbang that detonates multiple times and served as a tremendously funny fuck you to camping enemies."[6]
  1. 19: criticized multiplayer as too similar to BO3 and manual healing; found Blackout inferior to other battle royal Fortnite and PUB:G, and its successor Warzone[7]
  1. 9: "go on to be one of the series' most successful and beloved installments, even with its apparent issues."; "With the introduction of Blackout, Call of Duty's first Battle Royale mode, the return of 'boots on the ground' combat, and an excellent Zombies mode, Black Ops 4 is hard to hate on, even if you are someone who enjoys checking out the campaign every year. While Warzone pushed Blackout out of the way and out of our minds, it will forever live in our hearts as a solid Call of Duty Battle Royale experience"[3]
  1. 13: "Black Ops 4 dropped the campaign entirely and instead gave us one of the biggest multiplayer overhauls we’d ever seen, on top of the Blackout battle royale mode. "[8]
  1. 15: "Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 was yet another attempt to shake up the Call of Duty formula. For the first and so far only time ever, a Call of Duty game was launched without a campaign, something a lot of players were pretty upset about. It was just Zombies, multiplayer, and Blackout, the first attempt at a battle royale in the franchise. For what it was, it was a worthy attempt. Blackout is a much more arcade-y battle royale than Warzone, but it didn’t find the same level of success given it was paywalled to Black Ops 4 and Warzone is free and very accessible. ... The multiplayer itself was fun, but it didn’t fit into the vision of what Call of Duty should be for a lot of people. It continued to focus on Specialists, a system from Black Ops 3 that gave characters special abilities that they could charge up and use for maximum effect. Black Ops 4 also increased the health 10 150 and took away auto health regen, so players had to manually heal themselves. It was an interesting idea and showed that the series was willing to experiment. However, given this was the last time we saw anything like this, it may have strayed too far from the Call of Duty formula and started to feel like it belonged in a different franchise."[9]

MW19

  1. 2: praised campaign for its memorable missions; "The multiplayer in Modern Warfare was celebrated for its great diversity of maps and modes, and for introducing large-scale warfare with vehicles and bigger maps. The gunplay was once again excellent, and the bones of the game--the proprietary Modern Warfare engine--tied things together in a cohesive way."[11]
  1. 3: "best campaign since BO1" with its memorable moments and missions; "Modern Warfare’s multiplayer was decent too, and tried to evolve one of the most beloved multiplayer games of all time to the modern day with some nice additions, but its implementation wasn’t perfect. That said, its new modes like Realism and the 2v2 Gunfight were great."[1]
  1. 18: "The Modern Warfare reboot was a massive turning point for the series, regardless of the ranking. It would bring a resurgence in players that the series hadn’t experienced for years, at the cost of irreparable harm to the Multiplayer modes. The gameplay was far more grounded, the engine was upgraded, the campaign missions were thrilling to play, and this was even the game that introduced Warzone. Unfortunately, it was all for the worse. With a more grounded take on gameplay came the addition of rat players who loved hiding in corners with no downsides. Remember Dead Silence? It was nerfed. How about Ghost? It got buffed. Even the maps were entirely designed for random kills. To make matters worse, Prestige Mode was removed and the camo grind was one of the most punishing in the franchise. MW 2019 led to worse games down the road."[2]
  1. 4: "Confused by a game called Call of Duty: Modern Warfare appearing on our list alongside Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare? It gets even more confusing when you discover that the games share characters but are not narratively connected aside from the mention of a few events. Regardless of the naming conventions, the rebooted 2019 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare nails the atmosphere and tense first-person action of the older games’ campaigns, complete with several set-piece moments and a generous sprinkling of stealth. Modern Warfare doesn’t disappoint as a multiplayer game, either, building on the foundation of its predecessors while adding new mechanics, such as reloading while aiming down the sights. Its straightforward progression system emphasizes continued play and doesn’t include microtransactions for unlocking any weapons. The new massive mode Ground War is a fantastic addition to its multiplayer offerings that should satisfy those left in the cold by DICE’s decision to skip a 2019 Battlefield release."[5]
  1. 3: "This game mixed things up, and made everything feel fresh again: gone was the boiling world war that ended the original trilogy, and in its place was a quiet skulk through a house in Camden, looking for terrorists in the wake of a terrorist attack."; "Gunsmithing makes Modern Warfare‘s arsenal feel huge and lets you personalise guns to your own needs, while the maps are excellent. Firefights around the stalled busses in Piccadilly Circus, or through underground caves, all feel solid, while the fidelity afforded to these means that firefights feel close to overwhelming sometimes. ... Modern Warfare‘s team had an impossible mission: to make Call of Duty cool again. They pulled it off."[6]
  1. 7: "Leave it to the Call of Duty franchise to release a game with the exact same name as a 2007 title that isn't a remake of any of the games in the series, but is instead a wild reimagining that begins to rebuild the Modern Warfare series from the ground up. 2019's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare differs from its predecessors in that it doesn't feel like a series of disparate missions that line up to be shot down back-to-back without much contemplation. It feels like you're behind the reins of a tight action movie racing ahead at breakneck speed. It looks good, it sounds good, and it feels good. It's just a shame that, while a great first step to genuinely refreshing the Modern Warfare franchise, its two sequels just aren't as good."[10]
  1. 6: "This is one of the tightest campaigns in the franchise with a gritty tone that separates it from the original trilogy (even if the story isn’t quite as morally gray as it was originally touted). This was also the first title that significantly adjusted the gunplay. Each weapon feels like it has some real weight, giving each shot some impact. That’s a more welcome addition for the multiplayer, which also includes some interesting options to make modes feel more realistic. And of course, this was the game to debut Warzone. It may not have even been the series’ first attempt at a battle royal game, but it’s hard to deny that the mode can be a lot of fun. ... Unfortunately, some weaker multiplayer maps hold Modern Warfare back from being at the very top of this list, but it’s easily the best CoD game of the last decade."[7]
  1. 5: "Leading off the top five is quite fitting, seeing how CoD 4 barely missed it, and that's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, the 2019 installment that rebooted the beloved sub-genre to astonishing heights. The graphical fidelity, the ultra-realism mode for the campaign, the intense and redefined multiplayer, and the introduction of Warzone make this one of the best Call of Duty titles in recent memory and as a whole."; "Even with people's growing annoyance and disdain for the franchise, everyone seemed to stop in their tracks and admire what Modern Warfare brought to the table, which is an achievement in and of itself. We always felt that Modern Warfare got cheated with the aggressive yearly release cycle of Call of Duty titles, and it seems Activision also thought the same, seeing how Modern Warfare 2 (2022) will have an extra year to breathe."[3]
  1. 9: "The 2019 reboot of the Modern Warfare franchise – you can tell because there’s no “4” in the title – gave COD one of its biggest graphical and mechanical overhauls ever, making everything feel weighty and look more realistic than ever. This has now become the standard for COD titles, and is one of the most striking shooters you can play today."[8]
  1. 9: "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is the first time the series has ever done any kind of “reboot”. After a handful of years of futuristic games, fans were demanding a new Modern Warfare game. Instead of doing exactly what had been done before, Infinity Ward opted for a more “realistic” approach, prompting a story that was smaller in scope, but arguably a bit more tense in some regards. The developer was interested in a game that more closely reflected the times we live in, where terrorist attacks can happen without someone wearing their flag on their sleeve. Anyone in the crowd could theoretically be an enemy and that is a truly terrifying thought. While some of its themes are a bit surface level, it’s a worthy attempt at a new take on the Modern Warfare name with an excellent new interpretation of Captain Price. ... The multiplayer also laid the foundation for Warzone, one of the most popular and beloved battle royale games out there. While some innovations such as doors could be done without, Modern Warfare came at the right time for the Call of Duty series and was exactly what a lot of people were looking for."[9]

BO Cold War

  1. 10: "Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War sets itself apart from other entries in the legendary franchise by how much it excels when your gun is actually holstered. While Call of Duty is obviously known for its world-class shootouts with explosions around every corner and edge-of-your-seat moments, Black Ops Cold War added another wrinkle to that formula."; praise campaign for its quiet moments that make louder ones "more impactful"; multiplayer "fell a little short" but highlighted zombies mode despite a lack of content, "but it provided highly polished and tense gameplay sessions we still think about today."[1]
  1. 11: "As a complete package, Black Ops Cold War is the best game from the Warzone era. Of course, it happens to be the most like classic COD games and wasn’t yet moved to the new engine introduced in 2019. After a year in which Infinity Ward catered to slow gameplay, the infinite sprint and classic perks found in Cold War were a welcome return. The campaign was average, but Zombies was the best third mode in the current era. What held the game back was fatigue, poor weapon balance, and maps that were decent at best. Some were far too big to make room for the new large-scale modes while others maintained an awkward flow on three-lane maps. Eight maps was a laughably low launch number that was only exacerbated by the skill-based matchmaking system, which quickly became obvious in the new era."[2]
  1. 13: "The reason Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War is a noteworthy entry is because it’s the first game in the series available on PS5 and Xbox Series X|S. It ended up having plenty of content across Multiplayer and Zombies, with lots of callbacks to the original Black Ops games. Unfortunately, this game didn’t benefit much from being on the new consoles, as it looked muddy, and never felt on par with the level of quality from past games. It’s definitely worth playing, especially if you’re into Warzone (as the games share progression systems), but ultimately, this will end up being forgotten about."[5]
  1. 8: "a masterful [story] with a few interesting mechanical quirks: trying to solve puzzles in an ’80s safehouse in Berlin is memorable, and shootouts inside locations like a Russian recreation of small town America are some of the best moments Call of Duty has to offer."; "The campaign, sadly, is short and vanishes before it wears out its welcome. This is one of the bigger reasons Cold War doesn’t rank higher in the list – that, and the multiplayer lets things down. Coming directly after 2019’s Modern Warfare reinvented the wheel, Cold War‘s multiplayer often feels infuriating and never delivers the same serotonin hit as either version of the Modern Warfare franchise."[6]
  1. 9: "By the time Black Ops Cold War was released in 2020, more than a little Call of Duty fatigue had started to set in. This is not a title that revolutionized the series, but the campaign actually does innovate a bit, with missions that require more sneaking than running and gunning, clearly taking inspiration from the likes of GoldenEye 007. There’s even a neat story twist straight out of Bioshock."; "Despite being the fifth Black Ops title, the multiplayer is more streamlined than a lot of other CoD games, with more limited options closer to the first two Black Ops games as opposed to the often bloated sequels. Maps are also on the smaller side, as is the leaner Zombies mode. Cold War may not be the most popular Call of Duty game, but for a more recent title, it’s actually one of the most accessible."[7]
  1. 14: "At some point in time, there was a shift where Call of Duty went from taking a serious approach to peering into historical events to turning into an adrenaline-induced action movie fit with over-the-top setpieces and constant chaos. Black Ops Cold War is the embodiment of the whacky side of Call of Duty, which is more than welcomed here."[3]
  1. 11: "The wordiest title in Call of Duty history, Black Ops Cold War brought back the Black Ops subfranchise but lost a lot of the heart. This is a solid campaign and decent multiplayer experience, but nothing to write home about."[8]
  1. 7: "Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War took us back to the subfranchise’s roots after a handful of entries in the far-flung future. It once again returns to the world of political espionage, allowing players to immerse themselves in one of the most suspenseful times in American history thanks to the constant threat of nuclear war. The story was filled with great moments such as when you infiltrate the KGB HQ and must maintain your undercover status while making choices both in and out of dialogue. The game also had multiple endings, including one where you become the villain and set off a series of nukes across the world and frames America and the CIA as being responsible for it. ... The multiplayer also provided a strong contrast to Modern Warfare, which came out a year prior. For those looking for a more arcade-y experience and something less tactical, Black Ops Cold War was the perfect solution. It felt like a nice throwback to the multiplayer of early Black Ops games while still moving the needle forward to feel “modern” and keeping the pace of the Call of Duty franchise’s evolution."[9]

Vanguard

  1. 10: "While Vanguard didn't reach the same heights as some other modern entries in the franchise, it did provide a welcome reprieve to the "modern" and futuristic entries we've seen in recent years. Vanguard was a well-rounded Call of Duty package, with moments of genuine brilliance in all three of its core gameplay modes: campaign, competitive multiplayer, and Zombies."
  • "Like most Call of Duty games nowadays, the campaign was a brief but action-packed tour of combat told through multiple perspectives. Though not the strongest from a story perspective, Vanguard's missions were varied and consistently entertaining. The multiplayer, which continues to expand, features an impressive mix of maps and game variants, which makes for an experience that has been fun since launch and will likely remain popular until the next Call of Duty game releases. The Zombies mode removed some of the clever puzzle aspects from the formula, but it's nonetheless an enjoyable cooperative experience. Overall, Vanguard is a solid entry in the Call of Duty franchise, even if it feels a tad safe."[11]
  1. 22 (last): "Although it had some decent gameplay, Vanguard encapsulates so much of what is wrong with the current era of COD: It doesn’t add anything worth keeping for future titles, the campaign was one of the worst in the series at the time, and Zombies was a rushed third mode. Multiplayer was the one redeeming quality, which also contained many problems; maps were poorly designed and littered with destructible walls or windows. Then you add a bloated attachments system, and the game is simply too much. Maps and loadouts can make or break a COD game. Vanguard failed at both."[2]
  1. 11: "Call of Duty: Vanguard is an interesting entry in the series because it has a lot of memorable features, especially for Multiplayer mode. It sends players back to World War II, which is a downside since Call of Duty has taken place during that era far too often. You can skip the single-player campaign and the Zombies modes entirely, but if you’re into Multiplayer, you’ll likely enjoy this game — even more so after it gets updated. One of the best things about Vanguard is the degree of customization, as you’re able to utilize up to 10 attachments on most weapons. The majority of the primary weapons have 70 attachments to unlock, giving you plenty of ways to build weapons how you’d like. Though, in turn, this does mean the game feels a bit too grindy at times, but veteran players will likely welcome the sheer amount of things to do."[5]
  1. 9: "Vanguard hits a lot of the same notes as the other recent World War 2 Call of Duty games, but gets a higher position due to its inclusion of the Gunsmith customisation system and a fairly robust destruction mechanic that allows players in campaign and multiplayer to absolutely shred the world around them."; "the performances are good and you get to do a lot of fun set pieces, it’s just a shame the campaign doesn’t really spend a lot of time exploring how this team works together and instead has characters blubbing over the death of friends, family and commanding officers until it all comes to a satisfying conclusion."; "The multiplayer is good fun, albeit with the same problem as WW2: using modern customisation options with era-inappropriate options, giving players the option to create some truly cursed guns without really adding any mechanical support to the fact we’re in WW2."[6]
  1. 11: "If only judged by its campaign, Vanguard would actually be quite a bit higher on this. Despite being yet another Call of Duty game set in World War II, it does quite a bit to distinguish itself. Focusing on a small group of soldiers on a secret mission and showing flashbacks to how they got to this point in the war gives Vanguard‘s campaign a much more cinematic feel than most other titles in the series. And the stealth-focused mission in Stalingrad stands out as one of the very best in any Call of Duty game."; "Unfortunately, things go off the rails when you delve into multiplayer. The maps are actually quite good, it’s just that nothing else really does much to stand out from even Call of Duty: WWII, which had been released only four years prior. Even the Zombies mode has frustratingly little content compared to other games. Vanguard is a solid game that just doesn’t have much staying power."[7]
  1. 17: "it is an utterly underwhelming experience on all fronts. The campaign and Zombies modes feel lifeless, putting all the weight and pressure on Warzone and its multiplayer component... which also underwhelms."; "There are some redeeming qualities here, like the return of Ranked Play or some of the map design, but the weapon balancing, awful Zombies, and bland campaign make it a hard pill to swallow."[3]
  1. 18: "Another historical retread, but somehow more boring than ever, in pretty much every conceivable way."[8]
  1. 19: "Call of Duty: Vanguard is one of the first times it became visibly clear the Call of Duty machine was not as well-oiled as it used to be. It was heavily reported that Call of Duty: Vanguard was the result of new games in the series being internally delayed/canceled and developers being moved around on projects. Since a new Call of Duty is expected every year, Vanguard appeared to be something that was slapped together to hit a release date. The campaign was largely forgettable and while not anything awful, it was uninspired and missing that cinematic Call of Duty flair. The whole story is told largely through flashbacks as you see individual stories for each member of a team, but you don’t get to see said team in action until the very last mission. It feels like a bunch of missions that were created in a vacuum and then Sledgehammer Games had to try and stitch them together. ... In addition to that, the multiplayer felt like a World War II version of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019) with a lot of cheap innovations to make it feel new. There were things like some destructible walls, but these were so selectively implemented that it didn’t feel very exciting or worth hyping up. On top of that, the Zombies mode was a disaster and didn’t have any round-based content for months after launch. All in all, Vanguard was clearly rushed and a signal to Activision that it needs to be more careful without pushing things out the door."[9]

MWII (22)

  1. 11: "remembered for its thrilling campaign and excellent multiplayer"; "The multiplayer didn't reinvent the wheel, but it honed in on what people loved about previous games, delivering a "classic" feel. Ground War returned, offering up Battlefield-style large-scale action in 32v32 matches, and the Invasion mode was a particularly bright spot for players who just wanted a huge Team Deathmatch mode."[11]
  1. 21: criticized it for its slow gameplay; "Mobility, such as jump shots and slides, was heavily penalized, and Snaking, which is when players quickly move between prone to crouch behind cover, had no limitations. Mix that with the useless Dead Silence and busted Ghost perks, and camping was the name of the game. CODs are about map awareness and the ability to move with constant adrenaline. Modern Warfare II took those ideas and threw them out the window. At least the camo grind was one of the best in the series."[2]
  1. 10: "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II is a noteworthy installment based on its name alone, serving as a sequel to 2019’s Modern Warfare. While the two play similarly and even share a setting, Modern Warfare II is a clear step backward for the franchise, particularly due to its Multiplayer mechanics that tend to favor a slower pace. Its campaign mode is absolutely worth playing, but if you’re someone who likes to enjoy the full package, including Multiplayer, Spec Ops, and single-player modes, you might be disappointed with this one. Activision has also dropped the ball in terms of support, so the game feels like an incomplete package compared to previous installments."[5]
  1. 6: "It’s got no shortage of blockbuster setpieces, but Modern Warfare 2‘s campaign truly shines in its moments of restraint"; "As for the multiplayer, Modern Warfare 2 offers a big step up to 2021’s Vanguard: weapons feel responsive and deadly, while new game modes like Prisoner Rescue offer a compelling middle ground between high stakes Search and Destroy games and more traditional death matches. While some disappointing map design cast a damper on Modern Warfare 2, the rebooted sequel is proof that Infinity Ward remains one of the best FPS developers in the business."[6]
  1. 10: "With Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Infinity Ward used the past as a point-of-reference rather than a blueprint. The result is a thrilling campaign which doesn't rewrite the rulebook, necessarily, though it does reinforce the rules of engagement for Call of Duty in a new generation. Action is fast and frantic, positioning is more important than ever before, and death comes quickly to those relying on the old ways of playing – if you have a tendency to lean heavily on the left stick and reload after every round that leaves your clip, you'll be at a disadvantage here. This game doesn't necessarily do anything that you haven't seen Call of Duty do before, but it's a great time with incredible visual/audio design. "[10]
  1. 15: "The multiplayer is fast and furious as usual, but the handful of new modes here just feel like slight tweaks on what’s already been done."; "The campaign is not bad, but it’s hard not to feel like you’re just going through the motions, replaying the greatest hits of past CoD games. Whereas the original Modern Warfare 2 had a really awesome ending, this one has an unusually frustrating final mission where you have to avoid endless enemies while constantly pausing to neutralize a missile. It’s hard not to get the vibe that this is a pale imitation of one of the best games in the series coasting on its popular name. Even if it’s a mixed bag overall, at least the graphics are fantastic."[7]
  1. 8: "Despite being a direct sequel to one of the best modern-era Call of Duty titles ever created, 2022's Modern Warfare 2 felt a bit underwhelming in comparison, offering a half-baked Co-Op mode at launch, a worse campaign overall, and a multiplayer mode that was on-par with its predecessor for better or worse."; "Perhaps not the worst game overall. Its Ranked Play was pretty fun and rewarding. It just felt like it lacked the overall polish and focus of the initial reboot, having us place it several tiers below it and some of the other titles in the series that surpass it convincingly. It's not a terrible Call of Duty by any stretch, but it certainly isn't the best."[3]
  1. 7: "The most recent COD game (at the time of writing) is actually one of the very best. No, really: Modern Warfare II’s campaign is a rollercoaster, with each level offering a different gameplay option. One mission you’ll be sneaking through Amsterdam’s canals while silently taking out foes, while in another you’ll be hopping between cars as part of a huge convoy of vehicles. It’s exciting stuff, and almost makes up for the fact that the multiplayer and its updates have been… rough."[8]
  1. 18: "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (2022) may have been one of the most commercially successful Call of Duty games, but that doesn’t really mean much for its quality. Given the game (and the marketing) evoked the name of one of the greatest shooters of all-time, it had a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, the story features a weak, lackluster story that fails to utilize any kind of dramatic tension, features poor attempts to recreate big moments from the original Modern Warfare 2, and has too many missions with some poorly fleshed out gimmick at the center of it. It’s a big mess and that continues into its multiplayer as well. ... The multiplayer features some of the worst maps the series has ever seen, the time to kill is inconsistent and way too fast, the movement is heavy and slow, and the weapon progression system is borderline incomprehensible. The fact that the game makes you level up entirely different weapons so you can unlock the things you want for the gun you actually want to use is sort of inconceivable. It’s a pretty rocky Call of Duty game and it’s hard to imagine anyone willingly playing it over Modern Warfare 3 (2023)."[9]

MWIII (23)

  1. 12: "Modern Warfare III was facing plenty of heat before it was ever released. This was the first COD that would transfer all of the content from the previous game. Rumors were swirling early on in 2023 that Modern Warfare II would be a two-year game with a major DLC drop. That DLC became a full-priced game that was built on the same foundation. Some players looked at this like a rip-off that wasn’t worth buying because it was a glorified DLC. The early access campaign was only a few hours long and an entire list of remastered maps didn’t help that sentiment. Despite all the flaws, the Multiplayer experience for Modern Warfare III ended up being enjoyable because of the movement alone. Players who gave the Multiplayer a chance were rewarded with one of the better titles outside of the top 10."[2]
  1. 19: "Modern Warfare III was meant to mark the 20th anniversary of the franchise but ultimately fell flat and is one of the most disappointing launches in the series history. A lackluster campaign relied too much on nostalgia, got lazy with Open Combat Missions that were basically single-player Warzone missions, and was overall too generic to be exciting. While the multiplayer aspect of the game was as fun as always, this was the first COD entry to launch without any new, original maps, instead settling for map remakes from MW3 (2011)."[5]
  1. 16: "this dull reimagining of Infinity Ward’s original Modern Warfare trilogy felt utterly phoned-in. Despite the return of series villain Makarov, Modern Warfare 3‘s single-player campaign is both lifeless and shockingly short. Meanwhile, Zombies took COD fans’ favourite undead-blasting game mode and turned it into a limp extraction shooter."; "The fact that Modern Warfare 3 continued on from 2022’s Modern Warfare 2 meant that multiplayer was a surprisingly balanced affair from day one. Yet even the return of iconic maps from 2009 couldn’t stop this entry from feeling like it should have been an expansion, not a full game."[6]
  1. 15: "At its core, 2023's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 isn't a terrible game, as it is built off two of the best installments in the series while giving us back the fluid and fast gameplay that its predecessors took away. But it falls a bit flat when taking everything else into consideration."; "This campaign is arguably the worst it's ever been, and the same can be said for the Zombies and Warzone. And, while the Multiplayer is pretty fun, the map selection being nothing but original Modern Warfare 2 maps makes the price point hard to swallow. There are redeeming qualities about this game for sure, but not enough to place it any higher."[3]
  1. 20: "This game's campaign has a handful of original missions, but it's mostly a bunch of DMZ missions strung together with cutscenes. The classic Zombies mode has also been turned into a knock-off DMZ variation. Even the multiplayer adds the minimal amount of content, and relies on classic maps to prop things up. Developers were crunched to make this, and Activision executives continue to get paid millions per year. The most depressing title in the entire series."[8]
  1. 10: "The newest game on this list, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, is an interesting one. A lot of complaints have been understandably raised about the game being aesthetically very similar to 2022’s Modern Warfare 2. Some have suggested it’s nothing more than a DLC repackaged as a $70 game and that’s more than fair to say. However, for Call of Duty lovers, the multiplayer does make a lot of gameplay changes that fans have been demanding for years. It’s incredibly fast, smooth, and also brings back all of the classic original Modern Warfare 2 maps in all their former glory. ... The campaign is probably the biggest detractor for Modern Warfare 3 as it's the shortest in the series and is clearly yet another rushed story. It does a great disservice to some of the franchise’s greatest characters and leans way too hard into half-baked sandbox missions using the original Warzone map. However, the multiplayer is so strong this time around that it’s hard to let the campaign bring it down too much."[9]

BO6

  1. 6: "one of the best--and most varied--campaigns in the series to date"; best campaign since Black Ops 1; praised new omnimovement system in multiplayer[11]
  1. 9: "Treyarch had four years to cook with Black Ops 6, and the extra time was well worth it. There is no doubt that BLOPS 6 is one of the best Call of Duty games since Black Ops 3, and that is owed to the classic approach to the content. The campaign was fantastic, the classic prestige levels made a return, and Zombies launched with two great maps. Sure, some of the Multiplayer maps had weak designs, like Scud or Red Card, because they appeared to be made for a Warzone-like structure. However, the omni-movement gameplay was arcade COD at its best, and players got to follow one of the more satisfying camo grinds while they were at it. The Golden Age titles may be out of reach for BLOPS 6, but the game held its own."[2]
  1. 12: "Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 is a mixed bag that hits some of the highest highs of the franchise in its killer campaign while simultaneously continuing its trend of frustrating multiplayer woes. Thankfully, the former more than makes up for the latter for those seeking a rock-solid spy thriller, and its Zombies mode is a great time with a group of friends. This game also introduced omnimovement, allowing players to sprint and slide in any direction, ushering in a whole new era of movement-based gameplay for the franchise. Time will tell if this choice lands with players and continues to be a part of the series going forward."[5]
  1. 3: "When it comes to the series' boldest campaigns, the Black Ops games are usually up there, mixing Mission Impossible-like spy thriller energy with trippy sequences that make you question what's even real. Here in Call Of Duty: Black Ops 6, the story picks up from the fifth game in the series, Call Of Duty: Black Ops – Cold War, moving the action to the 90s during the Gulf War. While there's plenty of links to real-life history, this serves more as set-dressing for a conspiracy theory plot that mixes non-linear levels, a thrilling heist, and some genuine psychological horror. To top it off, the multiplayer is better than ever. Fast-paced "omnimovement" allows for great control over slides and dives, while avoiding the messier jump-happy overcorrection from the preceding entry in the series (read our Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 review for why!). If that's not enough, with two excellent Zombies maps at launch teeming with secrets, there's never a dull moment in this triumphant return to form."[10]
  1. 9: "Despite its solid campaign and return-to-form Zombies mode, Call of Duty Black Ops 6 falls a bit short compared to the peak of the series, offering a relatively alright multiplayer experience that drags its ranking down substantially. While it's still fun to kick back and play with friends, something is missing, which prevents it from being a great entry. Furthermore, the inclusion of what appears to be AI artwork in the game, along with a slew of bugs and issues, gives the game an oddly cheap feeling, which is something we never would have anticipated from Treyarch. While it's in a much more acceptable state now than it was at launch, it still has a ways to go before it can overtake the greats. Overall, Black Ops 6 isn't the worst game in the massive series, but it's far from the best, which places it somewhere near the top of the middle. Which is totally fine. It had the potential to crack the top three, but it can be a downright frustrating experience with all the issues plaguing it."[3]


Bonus: Warzone

Although not considered a mainline title in the Call of Duty franchise, the staff of GameSpot ranked Warzone the third best game in the series in 2024. They wrote that the title made itself stand apart amongst other battle royale games by offering the "trademark gunplay [and] weapons" of the series and offering a "feel" that was "unmatched".[11] The same year, Dan Wenerowicz of Complex Networks ranked Warzone the sixth best Call of Duty title, noting the game's lasting impact on the franchise.[2]

Although not considered a mainline title in the Call of Duty franchise, Sam Loveridge of GamesRadar+ ranked Warzone 2.0 as the sixth best game in the series in 2024, citing it as a "distinctive" take on the battle royale genre that "streamlines the loot system, adds an ingenious way to rejoin the fight in the Gulag, and slices through the somewhat monotonous world of battle royales with a dang tac knife."[10]

Sources

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI