Call of Duty: Black Ops reviewed on Xbox 360 by Harry Neary. Game supplied for review by Activision

I was looking forward to reviewing Call of Duty: Black Ops as one looks forward to visiting the dentist, a necessary evil but nothing to get excited about. I’ve become rather bored with the franchise due to its lack of dynamics - everything on full all of the time approach - and the stupidity and racism of Modern Warfare 2’s campaign. While the multiplayer aspects of MW2 were a triumph the campaign left a lot to be desired and I felt was a backward step for Infinity Ward to compared to the narrative presented by the red-headed stepchild Treyarch in World at War. WaW may have offered up plenty of cheap difficulty spikes and AI grenade spamming, but at least it wasn’t the videogame version of a bad Clancy novel set on full-xenophobe. My score - one of the lower mainstream ones on Metacritic - for MW2 is testimony to those feelings. So I was more than a little surprised that Activision actually sent me Black Ops to review.

I’m glad the publisher did though as Black Ops is the most fun I’ve had with a Call of Duty single-player campaign since CoD2 on Xbox 360 and PC. That’s not to say the experience is perfect - there’s still that over-coked Michael Bay feel to the proceedings, but while the pace and over the top visuals may draw comparisons with Hollywood’s favourite hack, the direction doesn't, which means you can at least tell what’s going on.

The story is simple and leaves no cliched unturned in bringing you the tale of CIA operative Alex Mason. The macguffin is neat though - we begin the game as Mason is being interrogated by goodness knows who - and the game’s levels take the form of Mason’s flashbacks to cold war missions in such locations as Vietnam, China, Russia and Cuba. There’s even a flashback within a flashback - an odd narrative leap as Mason remembers a tale told him in prison and we zap back to World War II for perhaps Treyarch’s last hurrah with the conflict.

As plots go it’s a hokey old mess that we’ve seen countless times before - most notably in Cold War James Bond movies, the Spy Who Loved Me being the most obvious example. Thankfully there’s no sweaty sex between Mason and his Russian counterpart though, I guess Mason didn’t like Victor Reznov’s beard. If you’re wondering about the name - yes it’s the same Reznov from Call of Duty: World at War, which offers an interesting narrative continuity between Treyarch’s releases.

The title Black Ops really doesn’t give you a flavour for the gameplay on offer. This is classic Call of Duty full scale warfare with AI buddies. Rarely are there anything approaching stealthy black operations on offer. Even the supposed blacker ops result in full scale gun battles. After all, there’s no quiet way of bringing down a just-launched Soyuz Rocket with an SA7. The missions vary in length and thankfully the more gimmicky ones are the shorter ones. Not that these are poor offerings, piloting an SR71 spyplane or firing a shotgun from the back of a motorcycle are great fun, but getting back to the traditional running and gunning is always welcome.

The gunplay itself is nothing new. Call of Duty has become a shooting gallery there’s not much different from its own Zombie-flavoured offerings. When good, it’s very good. The battle for Khe Sahn in Vietnam is classic Call of Duty - up there with the best of the series such as Omaha Beach or Stalingrad’s Red Square. Thankfully Treyarch isn’t as cheap with the difficulty level as World at War and there are only a few sections which leave one stumped. At one point I had played the same part of the Khe Sahn battle over and over, unabled to move forward against the waves of NVA troops. I was supposed to kick over some barrels of Napalm, and once I realised that I completed the objective right away. C’mon guys, I don’t want to be led by the hand all the time but this isn’t Zork eh?

On the whole I prefer a more considered approach to videogame gunplay than has become the norm in Call of Duty releases nowadays. The relatively more realistic approach of Medal of Honor is more my thing - though EA fumbled that ball so thoroughtly, resulting in a poorly scripted mess, that it’s hard to recommend it over Black Ops. And the simple truth is that Black Ops offersd more thrills and more fun than any Call of Duty single player campaign since the second in the series. It certainly banishes the idea that Treyarch is a poor second to Infinity Ward and you should avoid its releases.

In technical terms there’s plenty to enjoy. Despite being rendered sub-HD, there’s lots of detail and richness on screen. Some of the early levels look a little ugly - the motorcade to the Pentagon for example looks like some crappy PS2 rendition - but from Baikonur onwards the lighting and the level design really provides you with plenty of impressive spectacle. More impressive (and the reason for the sub-HD rendering) is the near constant 60 frames per second refresh - the hallmark of the franchise and what enables the developer to throw in so much frenetic action. There’s nowt wrong with the sonics either - a good surround setup will have you ears ringing. There are some impressive vocal performances too - Gary Oldman is in particularly good scene stealing form as Reznov.

So unlike Modern Warfare 2 - which was only really worth buying for the multiplayer - Black Ops turns out to be a return to form for the franchise and a real triumph for Treyarch. The game reminds me of a top-tier action movie - full of cliches and stupidity - but with enough narrative traction and so full of beautifully directed action that you’ll forgive it almost anything. Well done Trayarch and thanks for saving the series as a single player experience.

Note: Adam is going to bring you a full multiplayer review later in the week.

Call of Duty: Black Ops is available now for Xbox 360, PlayStation and PC from Amazon.